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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuine behavior beyond that: results are the user's own creations (not template runs), ordered newest first, and include status and links. It doesn't mention that the result set is capped or what happens past the limit, which is the remaining gap.

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, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the sibling disambiguation placed after it. Nothing redundant with the title or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description is complete on scope and ordering. The only real shortfall is the unaddressed limit/kind semantics, which matters because no default behavior for pagination is stated.

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 0% for two parameters, so the description carries the burden and largely doesn't: the phrase 'images and videos' hints at the kind filter but never names it, and the limit parameter (default 10, max 20) is never referenced at all. Neither enum semantics nor bounds are clarified beyond the 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?

States a specific verb (list), a specific resource (the user's MakeViral Create images and videos), plus ordering and return content (newest first, status and links). It also explicitly carves itself away from list_runs by noting template runs live there, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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 sentence 'Template runs are in list_runs' gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it, which is the main ambiguity risk among siblings. It doesn't address when to use this versus get_creation for a single known item, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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