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

The annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the description's job is lighter. It still adds real context the annotations lack: result ordering ('newest first') and the fact that results are paged via next_cursor.

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, no filler, with the resource and ordering front-loaded. The trailing fragment 'Pages with next_cursor.' is terse but slightly clipped rather than a complete sentence.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly states what comes back — items with links and ids — and covers paging. Nothing critical for calling it correctly is missing, though a note on empty libraries or the cursor's default absence would round it out.

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% and all three parameters are documented inline, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only echoes the content types and the cursor paging already in the schema, adding no format or semantics beyond it.

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 ('the account's saved work'), its contents (images, videos, songs), and the ordering (newest first), so the agent knows exactly what is listed. It does not distinguish itself from the nearby list_characters or from get_asset, so it stops short of a 5.

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: 'links and ids to keep working with' suggests the intended flow of listing then acting on an id, but no alternative or exclusion is named. An agent must infer that it should call this rather than list_characters when it wants mixed saved media.

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