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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context the annotations cannot: the result ordering (newest first) and the full field set returned. It stops short of discussing volume limits or truncation for large histories, which is the only remaining gap.

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 sentences, zero waste. The identity and ordering come first, the routing advice second, which is the correct front-loading for a discovery 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?

With no output schema present, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so by enumerating the fields callers can rely on. For a zero-parameter listing tool whose safety profile is fully covered by annotations, nothing an agent needs in order 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4 and there is no schema surface for the description to compensate for. The description's enumerated output fields are a bonus rather than a substitute for missing parameter documentation.

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 ('List your Video Analysis history') plus the ordering ('newest first') and the exact fields returned. It differentiates itself from the two obvious siblings, get_vision_report and video_to_prompt, by positioning itself as the discovery step that feeds them.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('find a past analysis') and what to do next, naming both alternatives and the condition that selects each: get_vision_report for the full report, video_to_prompt for just the recreation prompt. No inference required.

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