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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP method (GET /videos) and the account scope, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, response envelope, or other runtime traits, matching the same limitations seen in the calibration example.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the read-only note plus endpoint are efficient, valuable additions.

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 operation, the description combined with the fully documented schema gives an agent the endpoint, filters, sorting, and pagination controls needed to invoke the tool correctly. The return shape is not specified, but with no output schema and a standard list endpoint, that omission 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%, with all 9 parameters documented. The description names the filterable fields and mentions sorting, but it adds no semantic nuance beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('videos in the account'), enumerates optional filters and sorting, and explicitly marks the operation as read-only with the GET endpoint. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools such as apivideo_get_video (single video) and apivideo_list_live_streams (different resource type).

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 context is clear: this tool lists account videos with optional filters and sorting. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like apivideo_get_video, but the resource and verb make the boundary obvious. Missing explicit exclusion keeps it from a 5.

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