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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly discloses that MCP can READ, UPDATE, and DELETE, that DELETE is permanent and bypasses the admin Trash, that drafts are not supported, that public read is available via /api/agents, and it lists the exact fields and enums. This is far beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 a dense, unstructured block of text covering multiple concerns: purpose, capabilities, delete warnings, field lists, and access notes. It is not front-loaded in a scannable way; the key purpose statement is followed by a long enumeration of capabilities and fields. While information-dense, it lacks organizational structure and is overly verbose for a find tool.

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?

Given the tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides substantial context: the collection name, capabilities, delete permanence, draft handling, public read access, and field definitions. It does not describe the response structure, but with no output schema that is not required. Overall, an agent has enough information to call the tool 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 coverage is 100%, so all 10 parameters are already documented with descriptions in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning for parameters: it clarifies that drafts are not supported (relevant to the 'draft' parameter) and suggests using 'id' in upload-fields, but does not enrich the understanding of other parameters beyond the schema.

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 clearly identifies the tool as operating on content images (stock + uploads) within the media collection, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling find* tools by being the only one that mentions 'media collection' and 'Content images'. It states the verb 'find' as a capability, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the other find* siblings, though the media-specific focus implies it for media queries. It does provide a usage note for a different tool ('binaries come via the addMediaFromUrl tool') and clarifies that drafts are not supported, but no direct alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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