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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description goes further by disclosing the newest-first ordering, the meaning of the upload status field, and that the user's Cotlet API key with app access is required — all behavioral context beyond the 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?

Front-loaded with the resource and what is returned, then filtering, then the cross-references. Efficient overall, though 'newest first' is stated twice, which is a minor redundancy.

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 compensates by naming the returned fields and explaining the upload status semantics, plus the auth requirement and the handoff to related tools. For a read-only list tool this is close to complete, though pagination behavior (cursor) is not described.

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 limit, since, cursor and studio_id are already documented in the schema. The description only alludes to studio and date filtering, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb ('Lists recordings') and resource, states the scope ('across your studios'), the ordering ('newest first'), and the fields returned (duration, participants, upload status). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling riverside_list_sessions by talking about recordings rather than sessions.

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 explains the primary use case ('Filter by studio or by date to find the latest episode') and routes the agent to the appropriate follow-up tools ('Pass recording_id to get_recording, get_transcript and download_tracks'). It stops short of explicitly stating when not to use it versus siblings, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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