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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false, openWorldHint false), so the description only needs to add context — and it does: default sort order ('most recently edited first') and the multi-tag AND semantics ('carrying every tag named'). It does not disclose pagination behavior, which matters given a cursor parameter, but the ordering and tag-intersection details are genuine value beyond the structured fields.

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, zero filler, and the most decision-relevant information (what is listed, and the sibling it is not) is front-loaded. The second sentence is long but each clause earns its place by preventing a concrete mis-selection.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, and the tool's identity, ordering, tag semantics, and sibling boundary are covered. However, for a 6-parameter list tool with pagination, the absence of any guidance on q, limit, cursor, archived, or favorite leaves real gaps an agent will hit in practice.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must carry the semantic burden and it largely does not. Only `tags` is explained (multi-tag intersection); q, limit, cursor, archived, and favorite get no meaning, default, or format guidance anywhere in the definition.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List the account's films') and immediately adds ordering, so the agent knows exactly what set is returned and in what order. It also names the sibling it must not be confused with ('list_media returns generations and uploads'), which a name alone could not disambiguate. The 'films' synonym for storyboards is mildly loose but clarified by the title and the second sentence.

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?

Explicit exclusion: 'A storyboard is found here and nowhere else: list_media returns generations and uploads.' This routes the agent to the correct tool and names the alternative. It also states the condition under which a rendered film's video appears in list_media (only after export_storyboard_video), removing a likely source of wrong-tool selection.

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