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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds concrete behavioral detail: it returns a Markdown table with specific columns and notes that locales/devices live on videos. It does not describe pagination via limit/cursor, but the output schema and parameter schema cover those mechanics.

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, front-loaded with the operation and resource, followed by the optional filter and return format. Every sentence adds information; no filler or repetition of the title.

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 simple read-only list tool, the description covers the operation, optional filter, and return shape, with output schema handling full return details. The only minor gap is not mentioning pagination behavior explicitly, though limit and cursor are present in the schema.

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 67%: projectId and cursor already have descriptions, and the description reinforces projectId's filtering role. limit has no description in the schema, but its name and constraints make its purpose clear; the description does not add further semantics. This is adequate but not exceptional.

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 'List Tutorializer tutorial definitions' with a specific verb and resource. Clearly distinguishes from sibling list tools (list_projects, list_speeches, list_videos) by naming tutorials. The optional projectId filter further clarifies scope.

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?

Clear context: this is the tool for enumerating tutorial definitions, optionally scoped by projectId. It does not explicitly name alternatives like get_tutorial for single tutorials, but the list-vs-single distinction is strongly implied by the verb and return format. No exclusions are needed for a read-only list operation.

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