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 safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the hard cap of 20 results and recency ordering, but says nothing about pagination or how to retrieve anything beyond those 20, which matters for a list tool.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the result cap and recency ordering before the account scope. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the zero-param schema needs no parameter prose. The description covers scope, ordering and cap; the only gap is whether the 20-result limit is a hard ceiling or paginated.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly implies the tool is unfiltered and unscoped by input.

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 (list) and resource (videos), plus meaningful scope: 'up to 20 recent' and 'in the linked Clypmint account'. It does not differentiate itself from siblings like list_assets, list_posts, list_versions, or check_video, so it falls 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of alternatives such as check_video or get_video_activity. The only implicit signal is that it returns 'recent' videos, which is weak routing information among so many sibling tools.

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