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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful non-annotation context — it returns media_id values and orders results newest first — but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or whether the 50-item cap is the only bound.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns and how it is ordered, the second front-loads the usage trigger. No filler, no restatement of the tool name, nothing to cut.

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 read-only listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, contents (media_id plus images/videos), ordering, and trigger. The only real omission relative to tool complexity is the meaning/default of 'limit', which the schema does not describe either.

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?

There is one optional parameter, 'limit', and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description was the only place to explain it — yet it never mentions limiting result size. The parameter name plus the schema's 1-50 bounds make its meaning largely self-evident, so the omission is a gap rather than a failure.

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 names the specific resource ('files the user uploaded in Go Shift'), its domain ('images/videos'), the key returned identifier ('media_id'), and the ordering ('newest first'). It is clearly a listing/retrieval tool rather than an upload, which distinguishes it from siblings like meta_upload_image or tiktok_upload_video, though it never explicitly says it is read-only list retrieval or names those siblings.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use when the user refers to a file they attached earlier.' That is a clear when-to-use cue. It stops short of stating when not to use it or pointing at an alternative (e.g., platform-specific upload/creative tools), so it falls short of a 5.

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