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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the permission scoping ('you are allowed to see') and the fact that summaries are agent-generated, but says nothing about pagination, default result count, or the maximum limit of 500 that the schema hints at, nor about ordering defaults.

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?

Two dense but well-formed sentences: the first states what is returned, the second what can be filtered. Nothing is redundant and the key payload is front-loaded.

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 13-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description does well by naming returned fields and the filter surface. The remaining gap is operational detail: default limit, maximum results, and sort defaults are absent, which matters given the 500-item cap.

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 69%, so some compensation is required. The description covers the majority of filters (job, kind, q, summary status, geo-distance, taken-time, has-location) and clarifies that q spans transcripts and readable text, adding meaning beyond the schema's own wording. It leaves sort, limit, and shop_id unaddressed.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('List the photos and videos you are allowed to see') and enumerates the payload the tool returns: summary, taken time, GPS, heading, camera details. It does not differentiate from close siblings such as media_search, media_map, or media_needsSummary, so an agent still has to infer the boundary.

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 second sentence enumerates the filter dimensions, which implies the intended querying use case. However, it never states when to pick this over media_search or media_map, nor any exclusions or prerequisites; usage is implied rather than directed.

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