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

Annotations cover read-only/open-world, but the description adds genuinely non-structured context: the data is public (no auth implied) and the call costs 1 credit, which matters for budget-aware agents. It also discloses what the payload contains, useful since no output schema exists.

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?

Three short sentences: what it is, what you get, what it costs. Front-loaded with the identity and zero filler.

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?

With no output schema, the field enumeration carries the return-value burden well, and credit cost is disclosed. Missing only edge-case behavior (invalid handle, not-found response) for full completeness on a single-object lookup.

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 description says nothing about the handle or cache_max_age parameters, but the schema fully documents the required handle with three accepted formats. At 50% schema coverage the optional cache_max_age is undocumented everywhere, which is the main residual gap.

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?

States the resource precisely (a Dailymotion channel's public profile) and enumerates the returned fields, which cleanly separates it from dailymotion_channelVideos or dailymotion_video. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from the field list rather than 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?

Usage is implied by the resource: fetch a channel's profile when you need channel-level stats. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to the sibling tools for videos or search, which an agent in this 200-tool catalog would benefit from.

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