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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail by noting that omitting the status filter lists 'every non-deleted item in scope', which clarifies the default behavior. No contradictions with 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?

The description consists of two sentences, but the second sentence (under 'Guidance:') repeats the first nearly verbatim, adding no new information. This redundancy makes it less concise than it could be, though it is still brief overall.

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, and the description does not state what the response format will be (e.g., array of video items, pagination metadata). It implies a list but leaves the return shape unspecified, which is a notable gap given the absence of an output schema.

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% — every parameter (id, page, sort, order, search, status, category, per_page) has a description. The tool description adds no new parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states the verb 'List' and the resource 'CMS video items', and it enumerates optional filters (category, status, search, etc.) that distinguish this from other list tools. The name and title align perfectly, and the reference to cms_list_cms_sections for category IDs adds precision.

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 specifies when to use the tool: to list videos with optional filters, and it provides concrete guidance on the status filter ('Omit to list every non-deleted item in scope'). It does not explicitly contrast with cms_get_video or cms_list_video_paragraphs, but the resource and filters make the use case clear enough.

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