Put Me In

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. The description adds only that output includes prompt tips and substituted names; it says nothing about prompt count, format, or template-name validity. Modest added value over structured fields.

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 front-loaded sentences with no wasted words. The core output description comes first, followed by the actionable naming tip.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain returns; it partially does (example prompts, prompt tips, filled-in names). It leaves out how many prompts are returned and their format, which is a minor gap for a simple read tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the effect of the names parameter: names replace phrases like 'the person in photo 1' inside the prompts. That clarifies behavior the schema only implies.

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 names the specific resource (example text prompts for one template's scene) and adds the value-adds (names filled in, prompt tips). It is not verb-first and does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like how_to_make or list_templates, but the resource is unmistakable.

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?

It gives implied usage ('for any image-to-video tool') and guidance on supplying names, but never states when to call this instead of how_to_make or list_templates. The agent must infer the routing.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond them: results are filtered to answers mentioning the supplied keywords and default to whole-product scope when no template is given. It does not describe the response shape or behavior when no answers match.

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?

It is front-loaded with the resource and scope, and the parenthetical topic lists help an agent understand what kinds of answers exist. The single dense sentence is efficient, though the long topic enumerations could be trimmed.

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 two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers both calling modes, the default behavior, and the keyword filtering purpose. Nothing critical is missing, though the return format and no-match behavior are left implicit.

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 both parameters are already documented. The description reinforces that template selects the scope and question acts as a keyword filter rather than a full question, but adds little syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific resource (FAQ answers) and two distinct scopes: one template (photos, length, sound, price, pets, face swap) or the whole product (price, refunds, privacy, account). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like how_to_make or list_templates, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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?

It gives clear conditions for both modes: pass a template for template-specific answers, omit it for product-wide answers. It also explains how to narrow results with a few words in the question parameter. It stops short of stating when not to use this tool or naming an alternative explicitly.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by forecasting the content of the response (photos needed, roles, requirements, deliverable, page), which matters since there is no output schema. It stops short of return format or how the page reference is expressed.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that leads with the action, then the contents. It is dense but each clause maps to a distinct piece of the returned payload; slightly list-like phrasing rather than wasted space.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description tells the agent what it will get back and for which template, which is the essential information. Only minor gaps remain: no note on what happens for an invalid template name and no explicit sibling routing.

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 single 'template' parameter — including its enumerated name list — is fully documented in structured data. The description only reinforces that it takes one template ('one template's meme video'), adding no syntax or matching rules beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: it returns step-by-step instructions for making one named template's video, and enumerates the payload (photos per person with roles, photo requirements, output, page). It scopes itself to a single template, which separates it from broad reference siblings like get_faq, though it never names an alternative directly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated — an agent can infer it should call this when a user asks how to make a particular template's video. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no routing guidance versus get_example_prompts, list_templates, or recommend_settings.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are sorted 'most searched first' and each entry exposes a defined set of attributes. It omits pagination/result-limit behavior, keeping it out of the top band.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the resource and its ordering ('Every ... template, most searched first'), followed by a compact colon-list of returned fields and the filter note. The field list is long but each item earns its place by telling the agent what the results contain.

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 correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields (scenario, photo count, roles, length, aspect ratio, pet support, page) and the ordering. With zero required parameters, two well-documented optional filters, and read-only annotations, nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly 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 both parameters carry their own descriptions, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description restates the two filters in prose ('number of people in the video', 'pets') without adding format or edge-case detail, matching the baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb (list) plus resource (meme video templates) with explicit scope ('Every ... template'), plus an enumeration of exactly what each template entry contains. None of the siblings (get_faq, how_to_make, recommend_settings, get_example_prompts) overlap with browsing templates, so the agent can route unambiguously.

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 states the available filters ('Filter by the number of people in the video or by pets'), which tells the agent how to narrow results. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over a sibling or any exclusion conditions, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe, idempotent, non-destructive read, so the description's job is content disclosure — and it delivers, telling the agent the response includes quality options with prices and guidance on what each is good for, plus per-person cast roles. It does not say what happens for an invalid template name, which is a minor omission.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource first and then unpacks the returned fields in a scannable list. It is dense but every clause carries content; no filler.

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 only two parameters, an existing output schema absent, and read-only safety already in annotations, the description successfully covers the return shape and the decision-support nature of the data. What remains uncovered is when to reach for it instead of siblings and failure behavior for unknown template names.

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 coverage is 100%: both parameters are documented, the `use` enum values are mapped to resolutions and the 'leave out for the site's recommendation' default is stated in the schema. The description only echoes the 480p/720p/1080p tiers, adding no syntax or precedence detail beyond the structured fields, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 pair ('Recommended settings for one template') and enumerates exactly what is returned: model, quality tiers, aspect ratio, length, sound and cast. That is far more informative than the title alone, though it never names the siblings (list_templates, how_to_make) that an agent might confuse it with.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus list_templates, get_example_prompts or how_to_make, and no preconditions or exclusions. The only usage hint is indirect — that calling it yields a template's recommended configuration — leaving the routing decision to inference.

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