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

Annotations already mark the operation read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it defines what each status means, notes that an assignment is validated as soon as the video is received, and instructs that post_url should be included when presenting results. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: it states the tool's purpose first, then defines statuses and output expectations. Every sentence earns its place without excessive detail.

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 listing tool with 100% schema parameter coverage, the description covers scope, status semantics, crew association, and an output expectation (post_url). It does not describe full return rows or pagination, but those are not critical given the readOnlyHint and limit parameter.

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 the baseline is 3; each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds contextual framing around statuses, but it does not add meaning to individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('content assignments'), defines what assignments are, and lists the distinguishing data included (status and crew. It differentiates from siblings like get_assignment, create_assignment, and update_assignment by framing itself as an organization-wide listing tool.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: whenever the user needs assignments with production status and attached crew. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but its listing purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer appropriate use.

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