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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is low. The description still adds real context: window scoping, newest-first ordering, and partial data handling where like counts are missing ("new" when absent).

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns before moving to use cases and the alternative digest link. Three sentences, no filler, though the parenthetical about like counts could be tighter.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description conveys the return shape (newest-first shots and guides with like counts). Annotations cover the safety profile, so the remaining gap is only the undocumented kind/limit parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains days ("last N days", default 7) but says nothing about kind (shots/guides/all) or limit, nor the 60/30 maximums, leaving two of three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 resource (newest sourced shots and guides) with a scope (added in the last N days) and ordering (newest first). It is clearly a 'recent items feed' tool, distinct from point-lookup siblings like get_guide or find_shot, though it never names a sibling to sharpen the contrast.

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?

Gives concrete triggering contexts: "what's new in AI video", weekly roundups, trend questions. It also points at an explicit alternative for a richer need (the full weekly digest JSON URL), which is genuine routing guidance, but it offers no when-not-to-use condition relative to the sibling tools.

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