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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's only added behavior is that results come back "in order" and that "trending" is a valid synthetic id — useful but thin beyond what the schema states.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with the special-id note last. Nothing extraneous.

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?

A simple read tool with full annotation coverage and fully documented parameters; the description plus schema is sufficient to invoke it correctly. Only the relationship to the overlapping get_trending sibling is left 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%, including the "trending" special value, so the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate; the "trending" sentence merely restates the id parameter's schema description.

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 green screens in one collection" states the resource and scope precisely, and "in order" adds a meaningful property. It's a noun phrase rather than a verb, and it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling get_trending despite sharing the "trending" concept.

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?

The only guidance is a parameter hint (use id "trending" for trending clips), which is usage of an argument, not when to choose this tool over get_trending, list_collections, or get_green_screen. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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