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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds useful domain context (a Look carries category, style, takes, lipsync, treatment, places/props), but the closing clause 'pass its id as look_id with those choices' references a parameter this tool does not have, which muddies rather than clarifies behavior for a list operation.

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 sentences with no filler, but the first is a dense fragment stuffing scope options together and the second mixes return-shape description with an off-topic look_id instruction. The core listing purpose and padding/pagination hints are not front-loaded.

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 5-parameter paged list tool with no output schema, knowing what a Look contains is genuinely helpful. However, the description omits sorting/pagination semantics and the meaning of limit/offset, and its look_id remark points at a different tool, so an agent still lacks everything needed to page and order results correctly.

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 only 20% (just q is documented), so the description must carry more weight and it only partially does. It does explain the scope enum meanings and its default of 'all', which the bare enum does not, but sort, limit, and offset receive no explanation at all, leaving three of five parameters semantically bare.

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 identifies the resource (music video Looks) and the scoping concept, but it never states the operation as a verb — the reader must infer "list" from the name/title, and the opening clause is a noun fragment. It also does not distinguish this from near-identical siblings such as list_looks, show_looks, or get_music_video_look, so an agent cannot confidently tell them apart from the text alone.

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?

Usage is only implied: the enumeration of scope values ('all (default), community (public ones) or mine') gives the agent a hint about which visibility slice it wants. There is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over list_looks or show_looks, and no note about paging through large result sets.

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