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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden and handles it well. It explains that expired recordings are omitted, defines retainUntil as the deletion time for the recording and its public link, clarifies that firstViewedAt is null until first playback, and explicitly warns to ignore expiresAt as misleading plumbing.

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 three sentences with no filler, and each sentence earns its place: the first states scope, the second explains row-field semantics, and the third prevents a likely misinterpretation. It is dense but appropriately sized for the behavioral details it must convey.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description rightly supplies return semantics for key fields and the omission of expired recordings. It could add pagination or ordering behavior, but for a parameterless list endpoint the description is largely sufficient for correct invocation and interpretation.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters and full schema coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because parameter documentation is effectively irrelevant for this parameterless tool.

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 verb and resource, 'List the recordings in this API key's project,' and enumerates what is included (dashboard reviewer comments and viewed status). This clearly differentiates it from search_videos and list_tasks as a project-wide listing operation.

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 implies when to use it: to retrieve all non-expired recordings for the current API key's project, with expiration behavior clarified. However, it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like search_videos or list_tasks, so an agent must infer the selection criteria rather than being told directly.

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