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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: assets are private, results are only safe metadata and controlled previews, and storage/provider URLs are not exposed. This complements the annotations without contradicting them.

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, front-loaded with the use case and immediately followed by exclusions. Every clause adds information, and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Provides enough for a safe basic invocation: purpose, return type (safe metadata and previews), and exclusions. However, with no output schema and minimal parameter documentation, it leaves pagination semantics, the limit/cursor relationship, and whether kind can be omitted unresolved.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It gives semantic meaning for 'kind' as a media-kind filter, but it does not explain 'limit' or 'cursor', pagination behavior, or the fact that the schema lists no required parameters while the description says 'required media kind'.

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?

States the action (list) and precise resource (private MaxVideoAI reference media yielding image/video/audio asset IDs). It also explicitly disambiguates from uploads, exposing URLs, and generation, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools.

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?

Opens with an explicit when-to-use condition: user needs reusable private asset IDs. It also gives clear when-not-to-use exclusions: not for uploading files, exposing storage/provider URLs, or starting generation. This provides strong selection guidance even without naming alternatives.

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