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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: that public access metadata in the response does not prove session authentication, which is exactly the kind of interpretation caveat an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences with the imperative 'Call first' front-loaded, then the payload, then the authentication caveat and fallback. Every sentence carries distinct information and there is no filler.

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 zero-parameter, annotation-covered, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the essentials: what it returns, when to call it, and how to interpret an ambiguous auth signal. A brief note on the response shape would close the remaining gap, but it is not blocking.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter guidance is needed or missing.

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 verb 'Reports' plus the resource 'public planning features and optional account features' tells an agent what comes back, and the description explicitly points at list_video_projects as the sibling for the private-read case. The phrase 'capabilities' is broad and the split between public and account features is only loosely sketched, but the tool's identity is clear.

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?

'Call first' is an unambiguous sequencing directive that no sibling description could supply. It also names list_video_projects with the specific condition that selects it (verifying private read access). What it lacks is an explicit 'do not use this for X' exclusion, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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