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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it returns page metadata and explicitly does NOT download video media, which preempts a likely agent misconception about what this tool produces.

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?

A single efficient sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the clarifying 'does not download media' clause appended. No wasted words, though the clause is slightly dense.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description need not explain return structure. It is nearly sufficient, with the only real gap being section-value semantics for a 0%-coverage required parameter.

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 0% for the single required 'section' parameter, so the description carries the burden. It hints that the value corresponds to a GhanaWeb TV category but never names the parameter, gives no format, and provides no example or enumeration, leaving value syntax ambiguous.

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 ('current metadata cards from one GhanaWeb TV category'), and clarifies the return is metadata, not media. It distinguishes itself from a media-downloading video tool, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling ghanaweb_video (singular).

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 phrase 'from one GhanaWeb TV category' implies a category/section input is required, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of how to discover valid categories (e.g. ghanaweb_video_sections), and no routing to ghanaweb_video for single-item detail. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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