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

Annotations already declare a safe, read-only, closed-world operation, so the bar is lower. The description still adds value by disclosing the default ordering (newest first) and what each returned project carries (status and next expected action), which goes beyond the annotation set. It stops short of mentioning pagination or page-size behavior.

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 sentence that front-loads the resource, then scope, then ordering, then returned fields. No filler or redundancy.

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 return-value detail is not required, and the description still previews the notable fields. For a simple, low-risk list tool with fully documented parameters and annotations, this is nearly complete; only pagination/refresh semantics are unaddressed.

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 the schema already documents limit, cursor, and creator thoroughly. The description adds only the 'newest first' ordering, which largely duplicates the limit parameter's own description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb+resource ('Video projects of the account') plus scope and ordering ('newest first') and the fields returned ('status and the next expected action'). It is easily distinguished from get_project or list_clips by name, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those 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?

Usage is implied by the name and the scoping to 'the account', but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_project for a single project, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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