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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the response contains (author plus view/like/comment counts) and that results are ranked, which is genuine behavioral value, but it says nothing about pagination semantics, rate limits, or whether results are cached/refreshable.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and no filler. The closing sentence is mildly editorial but still carries real usage value.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the return contents and the input dependency adequately. The only minor gap is pagination/cursor behavior, which the schema already labels.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only loosely gestures at 'ranked' (relating to sort) and 'top' (relating to count) without adding syntax, defaults, or format detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ('Get the top videos for a hashtag, ranked') with clear scope. It differentiates itself from search_hashtags by declaring the dependency, but does not distinguish itself from near-neighbors like hashtag_detail or sound_videos.

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?

Gives the prerequisite chain ('Feed it the id from search_hashtags') and a clear usage context ('before you commit to it'). No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative for the same task, so it stops short of a 5.

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