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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description still adds genuine behavior beyond them: results are sorted newest first and each entry carries links and ids, which tells the agent how to consume the output. It omits whether a truncated list is signalled when limit is hit, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

A single compact sentence with the ordering and returned fields front-loaded and no redundant restatement of the name. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

For a two-parameter, read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and complete safety annotations, the description supplies the essentials: what is returned and in what order. Only pagination/truncation behavior and the exact meaning of "creations" across the type enum remain unstated, which is minor.

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 100%, so the enum for type and the 1-25 bound with default 10 for limit are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no filtering or paging semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"What the user has already made, newest first, with links and ids" clearly identifies the resource (the user's existing creations) and its ordering/contents, which distinguishes it from the make_*/create_* siblings that produce new artifacts. It stops short of an explicit verb-resource phrasing like "List the user's creations," but an agent can still tell what it does without opening the schema.

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 phrase "already made" implies the tool is for reviewing past output rather than generating new content, which is the relevant contrast with make_video, make_ebook and similar siblings. However, there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus, say, get_video or list_video_scenes, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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