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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine scoping behavior beyond that: only the person's own videos, only finished ones, and videos uploaded both here and in Skryvo. It does not state ordering, result limits, or pagination, which is a gap but a smaller one given the annotations.

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?

It is a single short sentence with zero filler, and the scope qualifiers are front-loaded. It is a sentence fragment lacking an explicit verb, which slightly weakens clarity but adds no length.

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?

With zero parameters, an output schema covering the returned fields, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the remaining essential context: whose videos, which state, and which sources. Only ordering and result-volume behavior are unstated, which is minor for a read-only list.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema provides nothing extra to document, and the description does not need to compensate. Baseline for a parameterless tool applies, with no misleading parameter hints.

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 identifies a specific resource with clear scope modifiers: 'the person's own finished videos, uploaded here or in Skryvo.' That distinguishes it from list_brands, list_channels, list_platforms, and list_scheduled_posts by resource, though the verb is only implied by the title 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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, and no mention of related siblings like add_video or finish_video, which an agent would plausibly confuse it with. The only implicit cue is that it covers finished videos, leaving in-progress or otherwise unfinished video retrieval unaddressed.

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