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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description is not carrying the safety burden. It still adds meaningful behavior: ordering (newest first), page size (50), returned fields (view and like counts), cursor-based pagination, and a credit cost. Missing only edge details such as error or empty-channel 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: purpose, return shape/order/page size, pagination, and cost. The most important operational facts are front-loaded with no 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 and only 67% parameter coverage, the description does well: it discloses ordering, page size, returned metrics, pagination, and cost. The remaining gap is the unexplained `cache_max_age` parameter and no note on failure modes, but the core calling information is present.

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%, with clear schema descriptions for `cursor` and `handle`. The description reinforces cursor usage but adds nothing about handle formats beyond the schema, and says nothing about `cache_max_age`, the one undocumented parameter. Baseline 3 fits given the partial schema support.

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 names a specific resource and scope: an Odysee channel's videos, newest first. It is clearly distinct from odysee_video (single video) and odysee_channel (channel profile), though it never explicitly names those alternatives. The leading 'Channel videos' restates the title, but the following sentence does the real work.

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 explains the pagination flow ('Pass the `cursor` from the previous response to page'), which is real usage guidance. However, it gives no guidance on when to choose this over odysee_search or odysee_video, and no when-not conditions. Usage is implied rather than explicitly framed.

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