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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive safety profile. The description does not contradict them and adds modest context by equating the catalog to /video-lab, but it does not describe any output behavior or edge cases. With annotations carrying the burden, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and content. No filler; the '/video-lab' note is the only supporting detail.

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 parameterless read-only list with an output schema, the description supplies the essential purpose and an equivalence anchor. Nothing needed to invoke the tool is missing.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, so there is no semantic burden on the description. Baseline 4 applies; the description does not need to explain parameter syntax or meaning.

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 ('List'), a resource ('Video Lab models, modes, and defaults'), and scope. The 'Video Lab' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling catalog tools like list_image_lab_models and list_audio_lab_voices.

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 use when the agent needs the Video Lab catalog, but it does not state when to prefer this tool over related list_* tools or provide exclusions. 'Same catalog as /video-lab' offers continuity but no alternative routing, so guidance is only implicit.

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