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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: newest-first ordering, a fixed 50-per-page size, exclusion of tags from list items, and a stated cost of 1 credit.

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, front-loaded with the resource and scope, each carrying distinct information (ordering, page size, tag caveat, paging, cost) with no repetition.

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 an agent needs: ordering, page size, 50-item batching, cursor-based paging, and absent tags. Only the `cache_max_age` parameter remains unexplained.

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 schema documents `cursor` and `handle` (67% coverage), and the description reinforces the cursor usage, so it adds only marginal value there. `cache_max_age` is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a real 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('a PeerTube channel's public videos') plus ordering and page size, and names peertube.video as the place to get tags, which separates it from the sibling video tool. It doesn't explicitly contrast with peertube_channel or peertube_search, but the resource is 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 to pass the `cursor` from the previous response to page, and redirects tag retrieval to `peertube.video`. That's clear contextual guidance, though there is no explicit 'when not to use this' for channel-level metadata or search.

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