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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that. It doesn't mention pagination, ordering, or that it might be the source of folder_id for filtering, which is implied but not explicit.

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 extremely short (three words), which is concise, but it lacks meaningful structure. It's front-loaded but under-specified. Every word is necessary, but more context could be added without verbosity.

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?

The tool has 4 optional params and an output schema, but the description gives no context on how parameters interact (e.g., whether search and folder_id can be combined, pagination defaults, or the shape of the response). The output schema exists, so return value details aren't needed, but usage context is missing.

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 100%, so every parameter has a schema description. The description itself adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. For example, 'Folder ID (from list_media / folders)' gives some cross-reference but the main description doesn't explain how search works. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus list_media_folders, list_assets, or other list tools. No mention of prerequisites or filtering options beyond what schema implies. Siblings like move_media_to_folder and rename_media_file suggest a broader media concept, but the description doesn't help select this tool.

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