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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the cardinality guarantee of 'at most one result' and the team-scoped lookup, which help an agent reason about the response. It does not say what happens when nothing matches (empty result vs. error), leaving a small behavioral gap.

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?

Two dense sentences: the capability and cardinality come first, the routing hint second. Nothing is repeated and no words are 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?

For a three-parameter read-only lookup with a fully documented schema and complete annotations, the description covers purpose, scope, cardinality, and the alternative. The only omission is not-found behavior, which is minor given the low complexity.

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% and the query parameter already documents that it must contain a UUID or jam.dev URL. The description mirrors that constraint but adds no format, syntax, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the 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 gives a specific verb and resource — 'Resolve a video Jam ... from a UUID or jam.dev URL' — and immediately bounds the outcome ('at most one result'). It also explicitly disambiguates from the nearest sibling by declaring 'No title search: use searchJams', which is critical given the tool's generic name 'search'.

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 states the positive case (query holds a UUID or jam.dev URL), the negative case (title search), and the alternative that handles the negative case (searchJams). The 'in the connected team' phrasing also scopes where lookups apply, so an agent has both when-to-use and when-not without inference.

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