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 genuinely new behavior: results are ordered newest-first, a fixed set of fields is returned, and view_url is only viewable for finished clips — useful context an agent can't get from structured fields.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the action, ordering, and returned fields, followed by the usage triggers. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does it reasonably well by enumerating the fields and explaining view_url validity. Minor gaps remain on the status filter and result-size limits in narrative form, but the schema covers those adequately.

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%, with both count (default 10, max 50) and status (submitted/processing/succeed/failed/all) fully documented in the schema. The description never references either parameter, so it adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides — the baseline of 3.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List your recent Switch videos") plus the ordering ("newest first") and the returned fields (id, status, prompt, model, view_url). It stops short of naming the adjacent siblings (get_video_status, show_media, list_generations) that an agent could confuse it with, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

It gives concrete trigger conditions: when someone asks to see recent videos, to check completion, or to pick one. There are no exclusions, and "check whether videos finished" overlaps with get_video_status without saying which to prefer, leaving one real disambiguation gap.

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