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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is real: it discloses ordering (newest first), that each item carries a thumbnail, and — importantly — that videos are included despite the tool being named list_images. It does not mention result size limits or pagination, which keeps it below 5.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core verb and resource, which is good. But the sentence is a run-on: nested parentheticals about provenance followed by a tacked-on "and the videos your person uploaded" clause that a second sentence would have carried more cleanly.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns — and it does: images plus videos, newest first, each with a thumbnail. For a one-parameter read tool this is largely sufficient; only pagination/limits and thumbnail resolvability are unstated.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents document_id. The description confirms the operation is deck-scoped, reinforcing what the id means, but adds no format or retrieval detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Lists") and a precisely scoped resource ("the deck's own images" — those uploaded, already found, or generated for the deck), plus a disclosure that uploaded videos are returned too. It doesn't name the sibling it differs from (deck_find_image, deck_place_image), so an agent must infer that this is inventory listing rather than discovery.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrase "the ones already found or generated for it" hints at the relationship with deck_find_image and deck_generate_image, suggesting this is the inventory view of their results. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of deck_find_image, and no guidance for choosing this over deck_look_at.

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