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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive behavior, and a closed-world scope. The description adds that the call is free and that results include state, which is useful context, but it does not add pagination, result-size, or ordering details.

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 definition is extremely compact: 'Free' front-loads the cost signal, then one sentence states exactly what is listed and that state is included. There is no wasted text.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with rich annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and return content. It does not specify ordering or a recency limit, but those gaps are minor given the lack of parameters and output 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and nothing in the description contradicts or complicates that.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists the owner's recent Motion videos and Add effects requests with their state. That is clear enough to distinguish it from creation or status-check siblings, but it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by 'recent' and by the listed resources, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of motion_status or the motion make tools. The agent can infer the purpose, but alternatives are not addressed.

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