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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It mentions 'Billing per call: 1 Credits', which is useful behavioral context about cost. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like rate limits, data scope, or any side effects. It is a read operation but nothing beyond that.

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?

The description is very brief and to the point. It includes the group and billing info in the same line, which is efficient but slightly cluttered. It is front-loaded with the key action and scope, no fluff.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not complete. It could mention that it lists videos, possibly pagination, or the relationship to region list. But for a simple listing tool, it is minimally sufficient.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds minor context: 'by region', but the parameter descriptions already explain 'region code' and 'count' with max 20. The description does not add significant semantic value beyond the schema.

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 states 'get feed video list by region', which is a specific verb+resource with a clear scoping parameter (region). It distinguishes from siblings like get_regionList and get_feedSearch, but the name 'get_feedList' is somewhat generic, and the description could be more explicit about what 'feed' entails (e.g., a feed of videos).

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?

The description gives a Group: 'Feed Related API' and mentions billing per call, which implies when to use, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_feedSearch or get_regionList. It lacks exclusions or alternatives.

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