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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely new behavioral fact: each result carries an 'open' link that loads it in the editor, which compensates somewhat for the absent output schema. It says nothing about pagination or how many results come back, so it does not go far beyond the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with a clear opening clause, but it degenerates into a single run-on sentence packing ~50 categories inline. The category list does carry information the schema omits, so it is not pure padding, but the wall-of-values phrasing harms scannability and could be summarized.

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 six-parameter, zero-required discovery tool with no output schema, the definition covers the filtering dimensions well and hints at the result shape. It leaves pagination/limit behavior and the semantics of 'query' (title match vs. full-text?) unexplained, so it is viable but not complete.

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 only 33%, and the description compensates strongly: it explains the format values with platform context, lists the full category vocabulary (which the schema leaves as an unconstrained string), and maps language codes to names. This meaningfully extends the schema, though 'query' and 'limit' remain undescribed anywhere.

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+resource ('Find animated video templates') with an explicit enumeration of the search facets (keyword, format, category, language). An agent immediately knows this is a template-discovery tool. It does not name or differentiate from any sibling, but no sibling overlaps this function, so clarity is high without routing guidance.

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 through the facet list – the agent can infer it should call this to search for stock templates – but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no prerequisites, and no pointer to adjacent tools (e.g., search_cutluma or list_free_tools). Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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