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

With no annotations, the description has to carry the burden, and it does disclose ordering (newest first), status coverage (all statuses), and the pagination contract. It omits Auth or scoping details beyond the possessive "Your", says nothing about page size limits or what a page contains, and gives no hints about cost or rate limits.

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 short sentences, zero padding. Scope is front-loaded ahead of the paging instruction, which is the right order for a list tool.

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?

A read-only paginated list with no output schema and no annotations needs ordering, scope, and paging semantics, all of which are present. The only shortfall is the unexplained characterId filter, which matters more here since nothing else covers it.

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 coverage is 67%; limit and cursor are already documented in the schema, and the description's cursor sentence is roughly a restatement of "nextCursor of the previous page". The undocumented characterId filter gets no explanation at all, leaving a real semantic gap the description could have closed.

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?

States a specific resource (video swap jobs) plus two scoping facts that define it: newest-first ordering and all statuses. That implicitly separates it from ryla_video_swap_in_flight and ryla_video_swap_status, but no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

"All statuses" hints that this is the general browsing tool versus the in-flight/status siblings, and the cursor sentence tells the agent how to page. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no instruction on when to prefer ryla_video_swap_status for a single job.

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