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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the useful scoping fact that only brand-owned clips in Brand DNA are returned and that scan_status is part of the output, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination, or access expectations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence states the scope before listing the output fields, with no filler or repetition of schema information. It is compact and easy to scan.

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?

Given zero parameters, read-only annotations, and a separate output schema, the description covers the non-obvious scope and the important content of the response. Nothing critical appears missing for an agent to invoke it 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?

The tool accepts no parameters, so parameter semantics are trivially complete. The description's field list adds useful context about the response payload but is not needed to clarify parameter meaning.

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?

The description anchors the tool to a specific resource—brand-owned clips in Brand DNA—and enumerates the returned fields. The tool name supplies the 'list' operation, and the description's scope clearly distinguishes it from upload/delete and general media list siblings.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus siblings like list_media or upload_brand_video. The phrase 'when to use it' refers to a field within each clip, not to the tool's invocation context, so the intended use must be inferred from the name.

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