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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: files and folders paginate on independent cursors, includeFolders requires type, and files with non-empty issues.errors are blocked from playlists until encoded. It stops short of describing response shape or truncation behavior in detail.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then pagination rules, then the sibling routing. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the final sentence enumerating three import alternatives is long enough that it could be tightened.

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 8 optional params, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: what is returned (file ids, issues.errors), how to paginate, and where to go next. Complete enough to call correctly, with only minor gaps around response shape and empty-result behavior.

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 100%, so the schema already explains every parameter including the includeFolders/type dependency and folderOffset independence. The description largely restates those relationships (dual pagination, includeFolders requiring type) rather than adding new syntax or format meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'List the video, audio and image files in this LiveReacting account's media library, and optionally the folders'. This clearly separates it from get_media_file (single file), upload_file/import_* (writes), and the list_* siblings (broadcasts, projects, destinations).

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to alternatives: upload_file for local files, import_from_url for direct links, import_media for Drive/Dropbox/YouTube, and livereacting_encode_media when a file has errors. It also states the downstream use case (file ids feed playlists). When-to-use is fully covered.

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