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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does add real value: it explains the inclusion criteria (aging, browser-captured, failed-analysis uploads) and that each result requires a separate content-fetch call. It omits pagination behavior, default ordering, and whether limit is capped in practice.

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 tight sentences: the filter condition is front-loaded, then the required workflow. No filler, and the actionable instruction comes last where it is easy to follow.

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 discovery tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, why items qualify, and the required next-step pipeline, which is the important part. Gaps remain around job_id scoping and limit defaults, but the core decision-support content is present.

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 0% for four parameters, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly maps to `kind` by saying 'photos and videos'; `job_id`, `limit`, and `shop_id` are never mentioned, leaving a reviewer to guess whether job_id scopes results to a single job or excludes them.

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 states a precise resource and filter condition (photos and videos with no summary yet) and enumerates why items land in that set — older uploads, browser captures, uploads whose agent could not read the file. This clearly separates it from siblings like media_list, media_search, and media_get, which are unfiltered or single-item.

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 prescribes the follow-up workflow explicitly: open each item with media.get include_content, inspect it, then call media.setSummary. That routes the agent to the correct sibling tools. It does not state when *not* to use this tool (e.g., bulk re-scanning or items already summarized), so it falls short of a full 5.

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