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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful access-boundary context (results are limited to the API key's organization and can be project-scoped), but it does not mention pagination behavior for cursor-based listing, which is an important behavioral trait.

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 tight sentences with the main action front-loaded. There is no wasted wording, though it could have briefly mentioned pagination in the same concise style.

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?

The description covers organization scoping and project filtering, and annotations cover safety. For a list tool with cursor pagination and no output schema, however, it never mentions pagination or result shape, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent invoking it correctly.

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 schema already documents limit, cursor, mediaId, and projectId. The description reinforces projectId filtering but adds little beyond the schema for the other parameters, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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: returns media library items scoped to the API key's organization. It clearly distinguishes from media_delete and media_uploads_* siblings by being a list/read operation, though it does not explicitly name an alternative list tool because none exists.

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?

Implies usage as a general media listing tool and explains that projectId narrows results to a project. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives, leaving the agent to infer basic list usage.

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