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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds genuinely useful operational context: processing videos are flagged, uploads take 10 minutes to 72 hours to finish processing, uncategorized videos appear in the list but stay out of the catalog, and a Cotlet API key with app access is required. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent needs.

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 resource is front-loaded, which is good, but the first two sentences are near-duplicates: 'Videos in your library with status, categories and release date' is immediately restated as 'Returns videos with their publication status, categories and, for scheduled videos, the release date.' That repetition costs a sentence without adding information, though the remaining sentences are information-dense.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so reasonably well by naming the returned attributes and the processing-state marker. The authentication prerequisite is also disclosed. Minor gap: pagination behavior via cursor is not explained in prose, but the schema hint covers it.

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 all four parameters (limit, cursor, search, status) are already documented in the schema, including the enum values. The description mentions status and categories but adds no syntax, default, or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies 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?

States a specific verb and resource (list videos in your library) and enumerates the fields returned — status, categories, release date. It is distinct from write siblings like uscreen_publish_video or uscreen_upload_video, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with read siblings such as uscreen_get_video or uscreen_list_collections, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 list/search nature of the tool is implied by the presence of search, status, limit and cursor parameters, and the description hints at filtering by publication status. However, it never says when to reach for this versus uscreen_get_video (single video) or uscreen_list_collections, nor does it state any exclusions. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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