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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful domain context beyond that: a project holds N videos that share the same media library, and this tool returns identifiers targeted by other operations. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the action and resource; the second adds the key domain fact and downstream use. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only list operation with one required parameter and no output schema, the description supplies enough: what is listed, the project relationship, and how the returned video_id will be used. It does not mention how to obtain a project_id, but sibling context and common sense make this a minor gap.

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?

There is only one parameter, project_id, and the schema has no description. The description compensates by framing project_id as the identifier of the project whose videos are listed, and by explaining the output's purpose. Format details are not given, but the parameter is self-explanatory in context.

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 a precise resource ('videos inside a project'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_projects or list_models. It also states the intended downstream use of the returned video_id, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives clear context: use this to see a project's videos and obtain a video_id for instruct/export operations. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use list_projects instead), but the intended use case is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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