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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so extensively. It discloses case/whitespace folding and variants, the 14–60 day retention window, default scoping to the caller's uploads, sort ordering, truncation semantics, and the nuanced counting behavior when filters or query are used. This goes well beyond a simple 'list' label.

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?

The description is long, but nearly every sentence carries useful information and the most important purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. It would benefit from light structural formatting, such as separating query behavior from filter behavior, but there is little redundancy given the complexity of the 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the response-relevant concepts: variants, recordingCount, untagged, firstUsedAt/lastUsedAt, truncated, and totalTasks. It also covers default ordering, retention-based visibility, and query-mode differences, giving an agent enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its results even without an explicit response schema.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate — and it does. It explains limit via truncation semantics, query via semantic matching and shortlist behavior, createdAfter/createdBefore as ISO timestamps affecting scope, and mine's default and override. It also adds meaning to taskName by explaining substring matching and normalized folding.

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 description opens with a specific action and resource: 'List the task names already used in this API key's project.' It then gives the motivating purpose (reuse an existing task name instead of inventing a near-duplicate) and names the downstream tool, create_video_upload, which clearly distinguishes this tool's role from its sibling video-management tools.

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 description clearly states when to use the tool — to find and reuse an existing taskName before calling create_video_upload. It also explains how different modes are selected (plain filters versus semantic query). It does not explicitly contrast this tool with list_videos or search_videos, but the task-focused purpose and the cross-reference to create_video_upload provide clear context without needing exclusions.

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