afl_content_video_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, and the description does not contradict them. It adds beyond-annotation value by stating 'Auth: none needed' and disclosing the exact return shape ({pageInfo, content:[...]}), which helps the agent set expectations. Rate limits or result caps are not mentioned, but the added context is adequate for a simple list tool.

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 three terse, front-loaded segments: purpose, return shape, and auth. Every sentence earns its place with no filler, repetition of schema data, or redundant annotation restating.

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?

With no output schema, the description properly takes on return-value disclosure ('Returns: {pageInfo, content:[{id, type:'video', title, duration, onDemandUrl, additionalInfo}]}'). Combined with 100% schema coverage and strong annotations, the tool is mostly complete for a list operation; only usage guidance versus sibling content/live-video tools is left underspecified.

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 the baseline of 3 applies — the schema already documents all six optional parameters with clear descriptions and examples (e.g., 'Rows to skip — this CMS surface pages with offset/limit, not page/pageSize'). The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, relying entirely on the rich schema.

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+resource: 'List video content (highlights, replays, press conferences).' It enumerates concrete content types and shows the return shape, clearly distinguishing it from sibling list tools like afl_content_text_list, afl_content_photo_list, and afl_content_promo_list.

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 implies usage by enumerating the covered content types (highlights, replays, press conferences) but never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as afl_content_video_get, afl_live_video, or entain_video_channels. No exclusions or preferred-alternative guidance is provided, which is a gap given the large sibling set.

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