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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that results span every authorized workspace unless constrained, plus cursor-based pagination — context a caller cannot get from the annotations. Ordering and rate limits remain undisclosed.

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?

A single sentence with the resource first and the scoping/pagination behavior trailing — front-loaded and free of filler. It is dense but every clause carries information.

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 no-required-parameter list tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and complete annotations, the description supplies the two things structured fields omit: default cross-workspace scope and pagination style. Return field details are absent but no output schema exists to demand them.

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 coverage is 100%, so limit, cursor, and workspaceId are already documented, including ranges and the default of 20. The description adds only the semantic that workspaceId is a narrowing filter over an otherwise cross-workspace result set, which is mild added value over the schema.

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 specific verb and resource ('List uploaded media') and adds a scope qualifier ('across every authorized workspace by default'), which cleanly separates it from delete_media and the post/account/workspace listers. It does not name a sibling alternative explicitly, so it stops short of the top tier.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus list_posts, list_accounts, or list_workspaces, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The only conditional ('by default') describes scope behavior, not selection guidance.

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