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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world behavior. The description reinforces this with 'links only; it changes nothing and reads no account data' and usefully distinguishes it from data-reading siblings. It does not describe the exact return shape, but with no output schema and a simple lookup tool, the key behavioral traits are covered.

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 front-loaded with the resource and primary use case, then gives concrete examples and exclusions. It is slightly verbose in phrasing ('so the user is pointed somewhere useful rather than told no'), but every sentence contributes to selection guidance.

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, read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains purpose, usage, exclusions, and that only links are returned. It stops short of describing the exact link format or whether multiple videos are returned, but the essential context is present.

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?

There are zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline 4 applies because the description correctly implies no input is needed.

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 clearly identifies the resource as product walkthrough videos and explains their purpose in linking users to explainers. It does not explicitly say it lists or returns them, but 'Links only' makes the retrieval behavior clear enough. It is distinguishable from siblings through the usage scenario.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: when the answer is a web-app action with no corresponding tool. It names concrete examples (connecting LinkedIn, archiving a campaign, billing) and contrasts with alternatives like `whoami` and `notification_list`, which read account data.

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