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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety and scope are covered. The description adds that results are public video cards and channels, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or behavior when slug is omitted. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the slug examples are packed efficiently. Slightly terse given the undocumented parameter, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with 0% parameter coverage and an optional slug, the agent is left unsure what happens without a slug or how results are paginated, leaving a gap for a listing 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?

Only one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does provide a concrete example slug format ('go/epl/videos'), which adds real meaning, but it never explains the default behavior when the optional slug is omitted.

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 ('public video cards and channels'), which is clear and distinguishable from the singular sportskeeda_video sibling implied by the plural/list framing. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the sibling, so it stays at 4.

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?

It hints at the accepted slug sources ('videos slug or a sport/event videos slug such as go/epl/videos'), which implies usage context, but gives no when-to-use vs alternative guidance and no exclusions. Usage is only implied.

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