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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond that: results are ordered newest first. It says nothing about truncation (limit caps at 100) or what identifiers/fields are returned, which would have raised the score.

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 short sentences with no filler. The resource and ordering are front-loaded, and the second sentence delivers an actionable recommendation rather than restating the first.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers what the tool returns at a enough level ('images and videos', 'ids') and its ordering. The main remaining gap is what happens when the library exceeds the limit.

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%, with both 'kind' (image/video enum) and 'limit' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no filtering or paging semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

The description names the resource specifically (images and videos in the workspace library) and adds a scope trait (newest first). The implicit contrast with importing the same file again hints at the boundary with import_media, though the listing verb itself is carried by the name rather than the text.

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 sentence 'Reuse these ids instead of importing the same file again' implies this should be checked before importing, which is a real usage cue. But it is framed as advice about ids rather than an explicit when-to-call statement, and it names no alternative tool or exclusion condition directly.

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