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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety needs no restating. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts beyond those: results are sorted newest first, and each preview link expires after an hour — a time-sensitivity detail an agent could otherwise miss and misuse.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and how it can be narrowed. The long parenthetical category list is dense but earns its space by decoding the enum; nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the burden of describing returns (media_asset_id plus a one-hour preview link). The main residual gap is pagination behavior — limit/offset appear in the schema with only numeric bounds and no explaining text.

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 67%, and the description compensates by translating the enum values into user-facing category names (Brand kit, Cover art, Made by Audora, Found online, Stock footage), which is genuinely useful for mapping a user's wording onto the enum. It also clarifies search spans name plus the artist/track/album the item relates to. It says nothing about limit/offset semantics, so it is good but not complete.

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 (the artist's pictures or videos in Audora's Library) with ordering (newest first) and scope (the artist's). The closing note that each item carries a media_asset_id 'what update_post takes' gives a concrete downstream link, which helps distinguish it from sibling list_* tools even though no sibling is named as an alternative.

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 rather than stated: the description signals the tool is the source of media_asset_id values needed by update_post, which is a real routing hint. However, it never says when NOT to use it, never names an alternative for browsing versus searching, and leaves the label-vs-artist-connection distinction entirely to the schema.

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