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

The annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) already establish the tool is safe. The description adds context beyond annotations: it mentions bounded page, same connected user, and explicitly warns not to claim completion for accepted/running jobs or to charge. This adds value and aligns with annotations. Minor gap: doesn't detail pagination or rate limits, but given annotations, this is sufficient.

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 a single paragraph with multiple sentences, each carrying weight. It is front-loaded with the primary use case and then provides constraints and alternatives. It could be slightly more concise by shortening the first sentence, but generally it is tight and informative.

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 tool has 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context to call it correctly: it explains the purpose, constraints (same user, bounded page), filtering, and follow-up. It doesn't explain return values, but that is not required without output schema. The only missing piece could be more explicit on pagination, but the term 'bounded' implies it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It directly mentions the 'surface' parameter (filter by surface video, image or audio), which adds semantic meaning. It references 'bounded page' implying limit/cursor semantics. However, it doesn't explain the 'status' parameter in detail, but the overall guidance on filtering is helpful.

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 states the tool's purpose: listing recent MaxVideoAI generations for the same connected user. It specifies the resource (MaxVideoAI library) and the action (list recent), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_generation_status and present_generation. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: when to use (when job ID lost or returning to recent work), what to do before considering a second paid submission, and alternatives (use get_generation_status for follow-up, present_generation for completed results). It also explicitly states when not to use it (do not use to generate, retry, or charge). This is exemplary.

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