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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety bar is low; the description still adds ordering ('newest first'), the exact shape of the brief payload, and the finished-only scope. Its trailing 'Read-only' merely restates readOnlyHint=true and adds nothing new.

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?

Front-loads the use case, then the returned content, then the parameter constraint, then safety. Every clause carries information (field list, ordering, carousel/thread clarification) with only the redundant 'Read-only' as filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing returns and it does so field by field (job_id, video, author, views, hook score, content_type, slide_count). For a single-parameter, read-only list tool, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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 0% and the lone `limit` property has no description, but the description compensates with an explicit range (1-50) and default (10) that the schema does not express. It does not say what happens when more than 50 analyses exist, which is the only remaining semantic gap.

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 ('Lists the connected account's finished analyses, newest first, in brief') and pins the scope to finished jobs with a summary payload. That scope implicitly separates it from get_analysis (single) and search_library (query-driven), but no sibling is named explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Gives two clear triggers: 'when the user asks about their earlier or saved analyses' and 'you need the job_id of a past analysis'. It lacks any when-not guidance or named alternative such as search_library for keyword lookups, leaving the discovery-vs-search choice to inference.

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