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

Annotations already cover the read-only/open-world profile, yet the description adds real behavioral detail: newest-first ordering, 50 per page, pagination back to the first upload, and a 1-credit cost. This is meaningful context beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about truncation or error 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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information — scope, ordering, page size, pagination instruction, and cost — with no filler and the key scope statement front-loaded.

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 description supplies the return-shape essentials (list of uploads, ordering, page size, cursor to continue) and the credit cost. The only gap is the undocumented cache_max_age parameter, which is minor for a listing tool.

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 67%; the cursor explanation in the description largely restates the schema's own cursor description, and handle is only explained in the schema. The undocumented cache_max_age parameter gets no help from the description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource — a Dailymotion channel's public uploads — which is clearly distinct from dailymotion_video or dailymotion_search. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, but the scope ('channel's uploads') makes the resource unambiguous.

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 tells the agent how to page ('pass the cursor from the previous response'), which implies usage for exhaustive listing, but it never says when to pick this over dailymotion_channel or dailymotion_search, nor any prerequisites about the handle.

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