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 adds real value beyond them: default sort order ('most recently changed first'), the exact set of returned attributes, and the required auth scope. Return format/pagination remains unstated, keeping it at 4.

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 dense lines with the resource and ordering front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical definition and the enumerated return fields are informative rather than wasteful, though the field list is slightly list-like padding for a listing tool.

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 supplies the return shape and ordering, and it names the required scope - enough for an agent to call it correctly. Pagination/limits and filtering behaviour are the notable omissions.

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% and the single 'query' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description never mentions the title-substring filter, adding nothing beyond structured data - baseline 3.

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+resource ('The workspace's videos') and even characterizes what a video is (AI-directed motion videos made from demos or a brief), plus the returned fields and ordering. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like list_demos or get_video, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

The permission prerequisite 'Requires: demos:read' is useful context, and the plural/list framing implies bulk retrieval. But there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_video (single video) or list_demos, leaving the choice to inference from naming.

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