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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds substantial extra context: the full status enum, the expiresAt lifecycle, the expiringSoon<24h flag, and the irreversible consequence that the file is gone once expired. That is genuine behavioral disclosure beyond 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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and returned fields, then the lifecycle caveat. Three sentences with little waste, though the parenthetical field list is dense and the parameter gap means words weren't spent where coverage is weakest.

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 correctly carries the return-value burden by naming the fields, status values, and url purpose, plus the expiry semantics an agent needs. The missing piece is input-parameter semantics (limit/brandId), which is a notable but bounded gap for a 2-param list tool.

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 0% and the description never explains the two input parameters. It alludes to a brand ('the brand's') implying brandId, but gives no semantics for brandId or the limit cap (max 100), leaving both inputs undocumented in schema and description alike.

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+resource ('List the brand's video editor projects') and enumerates the returned fields (name, status, language, edits, durations), which sharply distinguishes these editor projects from the sibling list_videos / list_creator_videos. An agent can identify exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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?

Provides a clear behavioral rule for expired projects ('do not send the user to download it'), which guides usage around the lifecycle. However, it never names an alternative list tool or states explicit when-to-use conditions versus siblings like list_videos, so selection guidance is only implied.

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