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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is to add the rest: it supplies sort order ('most recently edited first') and default page size (25), which annotations cannot convey. It stops short of noting auth or rate-limit behavior.

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: trigger first, then return shape, then the exclusion. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

Filters, pagination, sort order and returned fields are all covered, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained in depth. Only minor gaps (cursor round-tripping is left to the schema) keep 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and each of the six parameters is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the filter dimensions but adds no format, default, or interaction detail beyond what the schema already says.

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 ('list tutorial videos') plus the filterable scope (project, tutorial, language, device), which cleanly separates it from the singular get_video sibling and the other list_* tools.

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 an explicit trigger ('when someone asks which tutorial videos exist') and one exclusion ('Not for checking missing languages'). The exclusion doesn't name the alternative tool (e.g. get_project_localization_summary), so the routing is clear but not fully closed.

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