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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: results are source references rather than proof of fulfillment or ownership, credit/source/restrictions must be preserved, and an empty filtered page can still carry a next_cursor. That last pagination gotcha is exactly the kind of trait that prevents a costly agent mistake.

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?

Four short sentences, purpose first, then licensing obligation, then the non-guarantee caveat, then the pagination caveat. No filler and each sentence adds a distinct, actionable fact.

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 does sketch what comes back (catalogue media source references with credit, source and restrictions) and how to paginate via next_cursor. It stops short of enumerating returned fields such as identifiers or asset URLs, which is a minor residual gap for a read tool.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It gestures at all three ('bounded page' for limit, 'filtered' for query, 'next_cursor' for cursor) but never states the actual bounds (limit 1-20, cursor 0-10000) or what query matches against, so it only partially compensates.

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: read a bounded page of catalogue media cleared for commercial display. The 'cleared for commercial display with products' qualifier makes it distinguishable from the product-listing siblings, though it never names evuun_list_business_products as the alternative an agent might confuse it with.

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 by the scope constraint ('explicitly cleared for commercial display with products:read permission'), which tells the agent the precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use versus the many other evuun_list_* siblings. The agent must infer routing from the name and qualifier.

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