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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description goes further by disclosing the workflow role (supplying compositionIds for create_render/apply_composition) and what data distinguishes entries (format, active flag). It does not cover pagination or auth, but the added chaining context is meaningful given the annotation coverage.

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 with the core purpose front-loaded and the chaining guidance second; no filler, no redundant restatement of the title.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema defining return shape and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed to call it correctly and route its output. Nothing an agent requires 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and there is a single required projectId, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about the parameter's format or source, matching the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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) and resource (compositions/videos), scopes it to a project, and clarifies terminology via '(video)'. It contrasts naturally with the singular get_composition sibling by specifying 'every composition in a project' plus format and active status.

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?

Names concrete alternatives for downstream steps: use the returned compositionId with create_render for rendering or apply_composition for editing. This gives clear chaining context, though it never states when this tool should be avoided in favor of get_composition or other lookups.

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