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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-structured behavior: newest-first ordering, a fixed page size of 20, and the existence of a next_page field to drive iteration, which matters because there is no output 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 short sentences, zero redundancy, and the most decision-relevant facts (recency, ordering, pagination) are front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only list tool with rich annotations and a fully described schema, the description supplies what structured fields do not: return ordering, item contents (status), page size, and the pagination field. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single 'page' parameter is already documented with its default and the page-of-20 semantics. The description's '20 at a time' and page reference restate rather than extend 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Lists the account's most recent videos') plus ordering ('newest first') and page size, which cleanly separates it from single-item get_video and from list_clips/list_campaigns. It never names a sibling explicitly for contrast, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'most recent' framing plus the next_page note tells the agent this is a paginated browse tool, not a lookup. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer get_video or list_clips instead, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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