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 '(metadata only)' note does add real value by telling the agent the response is metadata rather than media, but pagination, ordering, and result limits for this list operation are unaddressed.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The trailing 'Onfido API: GET /live_videos?applicant_id=…' is marginally useful context for a tool-calling agent and is brief enough not to hurt.

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 single-parameter, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and the metadata-only nature of the return. It stops short on pagination and result shape, which the absence of an output schema leaves undocumented.

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% for the single applicant_id parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description only echoes it via the URL query string, adding no new meaning; 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+scope: 'List the live videos captured for an applicant.' An agent can distinguish it from onfido_list_live_photos by the resource named, though the description never explicitly contrasts the two near-identical siblings.

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 the resource and the required applicant_id, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no note on when to prefer it over list_live_photos, and no mention of prerequisites or the case where an applicant has no videos.

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