Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it declares the return shape (IDs + metadata) and the concrete downstream tools that consume an ID. Pagination behavior is left to the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then filters, then return/downstream payoff. Nothing redundant and no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the description isn't obligated to explain returns, yet it still names the ID/metadata payload and its consumers. Combined with full schema coverage and clear annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five params (kind, source, tag, after, limit) are already documented, including the exact-tag semantics and cursor clamps. The description only restates kind/source/tag without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb (List) and resource (media in your CueFrame library), with scope made concrete via the 'YOUR footage, not e2e debris' framing. It doesn't name the nearby listing/search siblings (list_catalog, search_resources) it could be confused with, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clear context for use: filter by kind/source/tag to find your own footage, and the returned ID feeds get_media_context, suggest_briefs, or composition sources. Downstream routing is well covered, but no explicit statement of when to prefer this over list_catalog/search_resources.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.