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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces 'Read-only' plus the GET /videos endpoint. Beyond the safety profile it discloses nothing about pagination behavior, defaults, or response shape. With annotations carrying the safety load, this adds only marginal context.

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?

Two compact sentences that front-load the action and scope, then add the read-only/endpoint note. Slightly list-heavy but no waste.

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 9-parameter read tool with an output schema absent, the description omits return format and pagination behavior. Annotations cover safety and the schema covers parameters, so it is functional but thin on behavioral completeness.

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 every parameter is already documented with syntax (e.g., tags[], metadata[key]=value) and defaults. The description's filter enumeration (title, tags, metadata, description, liveStreamId) repeats rather than extends what the schema provides, which matches the baseline 3 for full coverage.

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 (videos in the account) and enumerates the filter dimensions. It is clearly distinguishable from apivideo_get_video (singular retrieval), but doesn't explicitly say how it differs from sibling list operations like list_live_streams.

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: it's a filtered listing tool. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it name alternatives such as search-style siblings. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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