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

With readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already covering the safety profile, the description adds meaningful context: it identifies the asset types included and explains that the returned storageRef is intended for use as mediaRefs in a post. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying the integration behavior, though it does not disclose pagination or ordering behavior.

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 two concise sentences with no redundancy. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a valuable integration detail without bloating the text.

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?

The tool has four parameters including pagination controls and an optional workspaceId, and no output schema exists, yet the description only mentions storageRef and account context. Missing details about cursor/limit behavior, workspace scoping, and the full response shape leave an agent under-equipped to invoke the tool correctly.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain limit, cursor, or workspaceId semantics. The phrase 'XPlanner account context' loosely maps to accountId, but the pagination parameters and workspace scoping are left undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 specifies the action ('lists'), the resource ('registered images, GIFs and videos'), and the context ('XPlanner account context'). It also differentiates from sibling listing tools by naming media assets specifically and explains the downstream use of the returned storageRef as mediaRefs in posts.

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 implies when this tool is useful by noting that returned storageRef values can be used as mediaRefs in posts, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no direct comparison to sibling tools like xplanner_list_posts or xplanner_register_media_asset.

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