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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior — returned links are signed and expire after one hour — which an agent cannot infer from structured fields. It stops short of describing pagination/limit behavior, so not 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?

Two tight sentences: what it returns and how to narrow it, with the signed-link caveat front-loaded. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by naming media types and signed links with their validity window. It leaves a gap around result size/limit behavior and Trash semantics, which an agent would want for a list 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 only 33% (only folderId and productionId are documented), so the description compensates by enumerating the filter dimensions — type, production, folder, search, Trash — mapping loosely to five of the six parameters. The limit/pagination parameter remains unexplained, keeping it from a 5.

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 resource (media library) and its contents — images, videos, soundtracks — plus the returned artifact (signed links), so an agent knows exactly what it gets back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like view_media or organize_media, which keeps it from 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?

"Filter by type, production, folder, search text or Trash" tells the agent what can be narrowed but not when to choose this tool over view_media or organize_media, and gives no exclusions. Usage is only implied by the list semantics.

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