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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds the paginated listing behavior and the filter semantics on top. It still doesn't disclose ordering of results or the shape of returned media entries, which matters since no output schema exists.

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 tight sentences that front-load the core action and end with a useful API mapping. Every sentence carries information, though the REST-endpoint mirror line is slightly lower value than the rest.

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 five-parameter read-only listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers filters, pagination, and the downstream use case. It stops short of describing returned fields or ordering, which is the only meaningful gap.

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 page, per_page, type, search, and folder_id are already documented in the schema. The description restates the type/search/folder filters without adding format details or defaults beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List/search the account's media library') plus the paginated scope, which cleanly separates it from the get_media sibling that fetches a single item. The closing note that it 'Mirrors GET /api/v1/media' removes any ambiguity about what the tool wraps.

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 an explicit purpose: 'Use this to find media UUIDs for queue tools,' which tells the agent exactly when this tool is the right entry point. It lacks an explicit when-not or a named alternative (e.g., versus get_media or list_folders), so it falls just 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.