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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return object ({finds, count, total, next_cursor}), the pagination protocol ('pass next_cursor as cursor'), cost ('Free'), and error behavior (422 for invalid kind/sort/tier/min_score/device/q). It omits auth/permission requirements (the api_key param goes unexplained) and any rate-limit info, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the prose runs long with dense parentheticals, and it re-enumerates the return object ('Returns {finds, count, total, next_cursor}') that the output schema already defines. Most clauses earn their place, but the wall-of-text structure and schema repetition cost it.

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 9-parameter, zero-required list tool with an output schema present, the description is nearly sufficient: it covers filtering semantics, ranking, pagination continuation, cost and the 422 error surface. The only notable omission is authentication/usage of api_key, which no structured field documents.

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 coverage is 78%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: q is capped at 120 characters and searches title, channel, spoken hook and thumbnail content, with concrete examples ('red arrow', 'before and after'), and outlier_score is explained as a fixed 0–100 scale that lets entries from different runs rank together. Cursor and api_key remain unelaborated.

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 ('The index: every video your long and packaging runs found, across all runs'), and clarifies scope (all runs, one entry per video, newest read with its keep/reject). It is very clear what the tool returns, but it never names a sibling such as list_kept_finds or list_keeps to disambiguate, so it stops 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?

Gives an explicit use case: 'Use it to search what you already paid for before starting a new run,' which implicitly points away from the run-starting tools. There are no explicit when-not-to-use conditions or named alternatives, so guidance is clear but incomplete.

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