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

With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It conveys read-only intent (List), scoping to an owned customer, and opaque upload_ref values, but it omits authentication needs, rate limits, and pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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, direct sentence with no fluff. The action is front-loaded and every word contributes to meaning.

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 simple list tool, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks explicit usage differentiation from sibling tools and does not explain the output format or the significance of opaque upload_ref values. With no output schema, more context would improve 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 coverage is only 50% (customer_id described, limit not). The description adds no parameter detail, failing to compensate for the uncovered limit parameter or clarify the meaning of 'opaque upload_ref values'.

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 states a specific verb (List), a resource (direct video uploads), a scope (one owned customer), and a key trait (opaque upload_ref values). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like upload, status, and remove tools.

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 description implies this tool is for listing uploads, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it instead of related tools like google_ads_video_upload_status or google_ads_assets_list. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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