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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds context about pagination ('bounded page'), user scoping ('same connected user'), and output contents (workspace links, public result links). It does not describe cursor mechanics or order, but it adds useful context beyond 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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Use this to recover a bounded page...') and packs all essential information without waste. It is efficient and to the point.

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?

There is no output schema, and 4 parameters with zero schema descriptions. The description provides a broad overview but omits specifics on how to use the cursor for pagination, the meaning of the status enum, or the exact response shape. It covers some aspects (surface, page bounding) but leaves room for misunderstanding, especially for an agent needing to make precise calls.

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 explicitly mentions 'image, video, or Audio' which maps to the `surface` parameter, and 'bounded page' hinting at `limit` and `cursor`. However, it does not explain the `status` filter or detail how cursor pagination works, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 action ('recover a bounded page') and resource ('MaxVideoAI library'), and specifies the content types (image, video, audio) and output elements (workspace links, safe public result links). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_media, but the resource is specific enough that an agent can infer its scope.

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 opens with 'Use this to...', giving a clear directive for when to invoke the tool (to recover a page of generations). However, it does not mention when not to use it or point to alternatives (e.g., get_generation_status for a single item, list_media for broader media). The guidance is present but not comparative.

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