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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the description's 'Free and read-only' mostly restates them. The real added value is pagination behavior ('up to 50 projects per page') and the returned field set, which annotations do not convey.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and what it returns. Minor waste in 'Free and read-only', which duplicates the annotation profile rather than adding new 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 simple paginated list with an output schema, the description supplies ordering, filtering, page size, cost and return shape. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly on first attempt.

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 limit, cursor and artistId are already fully documented in the schema, including valid ranges and the artistId source tool. The description only echoes the artistId filter and hints at nextCursor, adding no syntax or semantics beyond 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Lists the customer's videos'), plus ordering ('newest first'), an optional filter, and the fields returned. It is easy to separate from studio_artists_list, studio_songs_list and studio_releases_list, but it names no sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the enumeration tool for videos, with artistId as an optional narrowing filter whose source is documented in the schema. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives or when-not guidance (e.g. versus studio_video_status for a single video).

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