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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: the hard cap of 8 videos, that they are the 'most recently edited', and the rendered field set. It does not mention pagination or ordering semantics beyond recency, but the truncation disclosure is the important one.

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 sentences, usage trigger front-loaded, then return contents, then the exclusion. It is efficient and front-loaded with only minor redundancy between the title and the opening clause.

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 need not be fully spelled out, and the description still summarizes the payload and the 8-video cap. Combined with full annotation coverage and a single well-documented parameter, an agent has what it needs; only the lack of a named alternative tool for the 'every video in a project' case keeps it from a 5.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents tutorialId (albeit thinly as 'Tutorial id'). The description says 'one tutorial' but adds no format, source, or lookup guidance for the ID. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 a tutorial and its videos') and adds scope: the tutorial's name, project, default voice, plus up to 8 of its most recently edited videos. It explicitly carves itself away from list_videos via 'Not for every video in a project', so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

'Use this when someone asks about one tutorial and the videos rendered from it' gives a clear triggering context, and 'Not for every video in a project' provides an explicit exclusion. It never names the alternative tool (e.g., list_videos) that the exclusion implicitly routes to, which keeps it just 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.