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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does well: it states ordering (most recent first), page size (50), default behavior (all platforms), and the effect of the platform filter. It does not explicitly say 'read-only' or describe the response shape, but 'List' strongly implies a non-mutating operation.

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 two sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the platform-filter nuance is stated in the second sentence. Every clause contributes useful information.

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 low-complexity list tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers scope, ordering, pagination, default behavior, and filtering. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly without needing to infer hidden behavior.

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 the description is not required to carry parameter documentation. It adds useful behavioral context such as 'most recent first' and '50 per page,' but mostly restates what the schema already says about platform omission and page defaults. This meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters without adding substantial new meaning.

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 names a specific action and resource: listing the authenticated user's video submissions across TikTok, Instagram, and YouTube. It also adds sorting and pagination details, and the platform-scope statement clearly distinguishes it from single-item or mutation siblings like get-submission-tool or create-submission-tool.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: for the authenticated user's own submissions, latest first, with optional single-platform narrowing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say 'use get-submission for a single record,' but the list-vs-get distinction is clear enough from the sibling names.

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