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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure responsibility. It only states the action and a cost feature, but omits whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, output format, or error behavior. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the action. Every line earns its place: the purpose, a cost note, and a parameter explanation. No fluff.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the core purpose and parameter semantics. However, it does not mention return format, ordering, pagination, or usage context, and there is no output schema or annotations to fill these gaps. It is adequate but not rich.

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?

The schema has no parameter description, so the description's 'max jobs to return, e.g. 20' adds real semantic value by clarifying the limit's purpose. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage, though it only covers a single simple parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('video jobs') with a scope ('recent'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_job and submit_video_job. The purpose is unambiguous and directly 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The only extra detail is 'Free.', which is a pricing note, not a usage recommendation. It does not differentiate from get_job for individual job retrieval.

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