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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds useful context: team scoping, recency ordering, hashid format, possible status values, nullable creator slug, and created_at. This gives the agent a clear model of the operation's behavior beyond the annotation.

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?

Four sentences, each one earning its place: scope/order, output fields, related tool pointer, and practical use cases. Information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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?

For a read-only list operation with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering, return fields, and intended usage. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke and interpret 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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, with both limit and status fully described including ranges and allowed values. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 precise verb and resource ('List the UGC generation jobs'), scopes it to 'the connected account's current team', specifies ordering ('most recent first'), and enumerates the returned fields. This clearly distinguishes it from get_ugc_job_status and generate_ugc without requiring schema inspection.

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 gives two use cases: reviewing a team's UGC clips or finding a job id to poll. It also points the agent to get_ugc_job_status as the next step, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling list tools like list_clips or list_videos.

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