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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that: sort order (most recently updated first), which fields appear and that the hosted URL is only present when live, and the required `demos:read` scope — an auth requirement annotations cannot express.

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?

Two short blocks with zero waste: the first front-loads purpose, ordering and return shape, the second covers filtering/pagination, and the trailing line gives the scope requirement. Nothing is repeated from the schema verbatim except where clarification is needed.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so by enumerating fields (id, title, type, status, counts, views, URL). Filters, pagination, ordering and the required permission are all present, so an agent can call this correctly without further inference.

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 only 50%, and the description compensates well: it defines the type enum (guided = tooltip walkthrough, clickable = hotspot sandbox), restates status as draft/live, and maps query, folder and cursor to their filtering/pagination roles. Only `limit` is left unaddressed in both schema and description.

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 ("Lists the workspace's interactive demos") and enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what kind of data comes back. It does not explicitly name or contrast with a sibling (e.g. get_demo for a single demo), but the listing scope plus "interactive demos" separates it from list_videos and similar siblings.

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?

"Filter by title search, folder, status or type. Paginate with `cursor`." gives clear guidance on how to narrow and page results, and the ordering (most recently updated first) is stated. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or pointing to alternatives such as get_demo for a single record.

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