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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavior beyond them: results are sorted newest first, filters are combinable but singular ('one project or status'), and pagination is cursor-based.

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 sentence with zero waste; ordering and scope are front-loaded before the pagination note. Every clause adds 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?

Given zero required params, a flat schema and no output schema, the description covers filters, ordering and pagination well enough to call the tool correctly. The only missing piece is the page-size control (`limit`), which the description leaves entirely to the schema.

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 only 25% (only `cursor` is documented), so the description must compensate. It covers `project_id` and `status` (repeating the enum) and the cursor pagination model, but never mentions `limit`, its default of 20, or its max of 50 – a meaningful gap for a paginated list.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Your videos') plus ordering ('newest first') and filter scope (project or status). An agent can immediately distinguish it from get_video (single video) and list_projects without opening either 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?

Usage is implied by 'optionally for one project or status' – it tells the agent the filters exist but not when to prefer this over get_video for a specific ID, nor any prerequisite for pagination. Adequate for a self-evident list tool, but no explicit when/when-not routing.

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