whale_popular

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context: no authentication required, results are filtered against previously recorded videos, and the content must be treated as untrusted source material (a prompt-injection guard). It omits what "previously recorded" is measured against and whether results are paginated.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; each carries a distinct fact (scope/exclusion, auth, trust). Slightly ambiguous wording in "previously recorded" costs it the top mark.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema and strong annotations, the basics are covered. Gaps remain around what the return payload looks like (video objects? count?), whether results are stable/cached, and the undefined "recorded" set — all relevant to a discovery tool used before whale_record.

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 single `limit` parameter has 0% schema description coverage (only type, default 10, min 1, max 20), so the description was the only place to explain it — but it says nothing about page size or the 20-item cap. An agent must infer the meaning of `limit` entirely from field names.

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 ("Read public popular videos") plus a scoping filter ("excluding previously recorded videos"), which hints at the dedupe relationship with whale_record. It distinguishes from siblings like whale_search by emphasizing popularity and public access, though it never names an alternative outright.

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?

"No login needed" gives a precondition, and the exclusion clause implies this is a firehose you use when you want unseen material. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus whale_search or whale_video, and no statement of what to do if everything is already recorded.

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