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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the authorization requirement ('Viewer role required'), the read ordering, and the exact shape of each returned record — more than most list tools. It is silent on pagination, result caps, and behavior on an empty surface, so it is not fully transparent.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the parameter rule, then the prerequisite. The enumerated field list is long but justifies itself because there is no output schema; nothing is padded.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description compensates well by naming the return fields, the play ordering, and the role requirement. It leaves minor gaps around pagination and edge cases (empty surface, invalid slug) but is otherwise sufficient to call the tool correctly.

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 both parameters (slug and surface_slug) are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description restates the surface_slug omission rule, adding emphasis but no new syntax, format, or default detail beyond the schema.

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 the videos in a video surface') plus the ordering ('in play order') and the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not, however, name or contrast any sibling (e.g. list_surfaces) to disambiguate the surface-vs-workspace boundary, which the rubric reserves for 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?

Gives a concrete usage rule for the optional parameter ('Omit `surface_slug` for the workspace's first video surface') and a prerequisite ('Viewer role required'). It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use this tool, so it is clear context without full when/when-not routing.

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