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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: pagination and type-filter support, plus a full account of returned fields (including type-specific ones). Auth requirement is only implied by 'authenticated user's', and no ordering guarantee is stated.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence earns its place by covering usage examples, filtering capability, and return fields. The field enumeration is long but justified because no output schema exists, though it slightly dilutes focus.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating returned fields and type-specific extras. Filtering and pagination behavior are noted. Minor gaps remain around ordering/default behavior and explicit authentication requirements, but the core is complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents type, limit, offset, and favoritesOnly in detail. The description's mention of 'pagination and type filtering' largely restates the schema without adding format or default detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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: returns gallery items (images, videos, audio) for the authenticated user's AetherWave creations. This cleanly distinguishes it from the many generation/editing siblings like aetherwave_generate_image and aetherwave_reframe_image, which produce or modify rather than list.

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?

Provides concrete when-to-use context via example workflows ('find my last 5 images and reframe them all to 9:16', 'list my recent songs and master each one'), which signals it's a discovery step feeding other tools. It lacks explicit exclusions or naming of an alternative list/filter tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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