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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that — the result ordering, the 50-item page size, and the default cross-platform merge. It does not mention whether pagination terminates or how to detect the last page, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste; scope, ordering, pagination and the platform override are all front-loaded in the first two sentences. Nothing is repeated or padding.

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 carries return-value burden and does so partly by pointing to get-submission-tool and naming `status` and `scheduled_at`. Pagination size and ordering are covered, though total-count or end-of-list behavior is unstated, leaving a small gap for a list tool.

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 both parameters are already fully documented and the baseline is 3. The description restates the platform filter's default (merged newest-first) and the page size, adding mild reinforcement but no format or syntax detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource ("List the authenticated user's video submissions") plus the platforms covered, ordering ("most recent first") and page size. It also distinguishes itself from get-submission-tool by defining that items share that tool's shape, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening a schema.

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?

"Every platform is included unless `platform` narrows it to one" gives clear selection guidance for the one optional filter, and the reference to get-submission-tool clarifies the relationship to a sibling. It lacks any explicit when-not-to-use statement (e.g. versus list-accounts-tool context), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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