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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that it returns enabled models and their supported parameters/capabilities, which is useful but does not go beyond what annotations already imply. Since the description does not contradict annotations, a 3 is appropriate as it adds minimal extra behavioral context.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. It efficiently covers the key aspects (enabled models, parameters, capabilities) without any fluff, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, read-only, idempotent) and the existence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It clearly states what the tool lists and the content categories. It might benefit from noting that it returns a list, but that is implicit in 'List'. Overall, it covers what an agent needs to know.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description doesn't need to explain any. The baseline is 4 for no parameters, and the description appropriately focuses on what the tool returns, which is helpful for understanding the tool's purpose. No parameter semantics are needed.

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 clearly states the tool lists enabled animation models with their supported parameters and capabilities. It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('animation models'), and the scope ('enabled') distinguishes it from potentially listing all models, though siblings don't include a similar list tool, making differentiation straightforward.

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 usage for discovering available models and their capabilities, which is clear from the context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but given the sibling tools are for actions like generating or canceling animations, the distinction is implied. No explicit exclusions are provided.

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