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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so safety is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that, that each result carries the item id (enabling chaining to get_media), but says nothing about match semantics (substring vs fuzzy), result caps, or ordering.

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, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the result-shape detail trailing. Nothing needs trimming.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and with one well-documented parameter the definition is nearly sufficient. Only match semantics and result limits are left unspecified, which is a minor gap for a simple search tool.

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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'query' fully; the description's 'by title or author' essentially restates it. Baseline 3 is appropriate with no additional syntax or format detail supplied.

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 (search) and resource (the user's media), and narrows the match fields to title or author, which separates it from list_recent_media and get_media. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting those siblings, but the intent is unambiguous.

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: 'by title or author' suggests a keyword-lookup tool rather than an id lookup (get_media) or a recency browse (list_recent_media), and mentioning that results carry the id hints at a follow-up get_media call. There is no explicit when-to-use statement or exclusion, so an agent must infer the routing.

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