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

With no annotations, the description carries the responsibility of disclosing behavior. It notes that results are capped at 20 and ranked by engagement within a time window, which is useful. However, it does not clarify pagination semantics or whether the cap is total or per page.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the action, resource, ordering, time-window scope, and result cap efficiently.

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 read-style tool with four optional parameters and an output schema, the description plus schema gives a workable picture. It omits explicit pagination guidance and sibling-tool routing, but those are largely inferable from the schema and tool name.

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 75% (page, cursor, and window are documented), so the schema already carries most parameter meaning. The description only paraphrases the window and max-20 limit, adding no new parameter-specific semantics; baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a clear resource ('trending adult videos on DesAira'), a ranking criterion ('by engagement'), and a time-window qualifier. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_feed, get_video, and search_content.

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 description conveys a clear use case: retrieve engagement-ranked trending videos for a selected time window. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is specific enough for an agent to select it for trending-content queries.

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