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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds behavioral context beyond them: it requires an API key or signed-in session, and critically discloses that results are capped at 50 with no pagination. That cap/auth disclosure is exactly the kind of non-obvious constraint annotations cannot express.

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 scope and ordering, then constraints, then sibling routing. No filler; every clause carries actionable 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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description compensates fully by naming returned fields, the 50-item cap, absent pagination, and auth requirements. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret its limits.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does describe the shape of returned items (id, filename, timestamps, share URL), which is useful but concerns output rather than parameters.

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 (List) and resource (assets owned by the authenticated user), plus scope (up to 50, newest first) and returned fields. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming search_gallery and view, so an agent can route correctly without opening any 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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool (own assets) and when to use alternatives: 'Use search_gallery for public works from other users, or view to open one of your assets.' The conditions that select each sibling are named, not implied.

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