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

Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: each item carries a signed preview link valid 24 h, isDefault marks the fallback logo, and the call is free — details not derivable from structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then usage, then return specifics, with each sentence contributing distinct information. It is dense and slightly run-on, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so reasonably (signed preview link with validity window, isDefault flag). For a one-optional-param list tool this is nearly complete, though it could clarify whether results are paginated or grouped by kind.

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% and the single 'kind' enum already documents 'Only logos or only music.' The description mentions the two asset categories but adds no filtering syntax or behavior beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 is correct.

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 the logos and music tracks this account can put in a video') and names the two sources (own Brand Kit + free platform library), which clearly separates it from the many other list_* siblings. An agent knows exactly what comes back.

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?

It routes the agent downstream: 'Use a logo id as logo_asset_id... in create_short / start_clipper / create_compilation,' giving clear context for why and when this tool is called relative to the creation tools. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance or naming a competing list tool.

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