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 structurally. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the default sort (newest first) and, critically, that each asset carries a publicUrl directly usable as media_link. It does not mention pagination or the 48 cap, which are left to the schema.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, followed by the key output affordance (publicUrl for scheduling) and filters. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, output affordance, and filters. It omits pagination/cap behavior and whether results are workspace-scoped, which would be useful but are minor for this tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter (kind, mime, sort, limit, query) is already documented in the schema. The description restates the filter options (kind, mime, query) in prose but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List media... the user has uploaded to their SocialClaw library') and distinguishes itself from siblings like list_instagram_media by scoping to the user's own upload library. An agent can tell it apart from upload_asset and list_posts immediately.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: 'Use this to find a previously uploaded file (e.g. from the dashboard) to post,' and names the downstream tools (validate_schedule/apply_schedule) that consume its output. No alternative-selection ambiguity remains.

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