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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results are paginated and that it mirrors GET /api/v1/media, but says nothing about ordering, total counts, rate limits, or what each item contains; with annotations doing the heavy lifting this is an adequate but not rich disclosure.

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, front-loaded with the core action, followed by filters and then the usage cue. The trailing 'Mirrors GET /api/v1/media' is low-value for an agent but cheap, so it is close to optimal without being perfectly trimmed.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, filters, pagination and the downstream use case (finding UUIDs). It omits any hint of the response shape or result ordering, a minor gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 every parameter (page, type, search, per_page, folder_id) is already documented, including defaults, ranges and the 'root' literal. The description restates three of the filters but adds no syntax or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('List/search the account's media library') and states the paginated scope plus the filters available, which clearly separates it from the single-item get_media sibling. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with list_folders/list_tags/list_streams, so an agent must infer the sibling boundaries.

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?

'Use this to find media UUIDs for queue tools' gives a concrete downstream context for when to call it, which is genuinely actionable routing guidance. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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