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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value with the scope exclusion (no full briefs, no contact data), but says nothing about pagination behavior despite cursor/limit parameters.

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, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the scope exclusion. No filler or repetition.

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 output schema covers return values, so omitting them is fine, and annotations cover safety. But for a paginated list tool with 0% schema description coverage, the absence of any paging or org-context guidance leaves the definition thin.

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% and the description documents none of the three parameters — limit, cursor, or the required organization_id — beyond a vague 'authorized organization' phrase. With the schema providing only types/patterns, the description should have explained the cursor-based paging model and org scoping.

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 (List) and resource (saved video creation summaries) scoped to an organization, which distinguishes it from journeys_get by list-vs-fetch semantics. However, it never maps 'journeys' to 'video creation summaries' or differentiates from the adjacent journey_authoring_get / journey_overlays_get siblings.

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 implied only: 'List ... summaries' suggests enumeration, and the exclusion 'Does not return full briefs or contact data' implicitly points an agent to journeys_get when full detail is needed. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement.

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