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.