afl_content_photo_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond that by specifying 'Auth: none needed' and outlining the response shape ({pageInfo, content:[{id, type:'photo', title, leadMedia}]}), which is especially useful since no output schema exists. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: a single action sentence plus a compact return structure and auth note. Every line provides useful information with zero waste, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 list tool with 5 optional parameters, the schema fully documents the parameters and annotations cover safety, while the description fills gaps with auth requirements and return format since no output schema exists. The only missing element is explicit guidance on when to choose this over the photo 'get' sibling, but overall the description is sufficiently complete for a well-scoped list operation.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions (e.g., 'Rows to skip — this CMS surface pages with offset/limit, not page/pageSize'), so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter information, leaving semantics entirely to the schema, which is adequate but not enhanced.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('photo content'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like afl_content_text_list and afl_content_video_list by specifying the photo content type, and also provides the return structure.

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 description gives implied usage context by naming the operation ('List photo content') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as afl_content_photo_get for fetching a single photo. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites, relying on the tool name and sibling list for differentiation.

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