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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it says the tool takes no title_id (no scoping/filtering available) and sketches the content of the payload (format fields plus the enumerated VideoSpec vocabulary). No return format or cardinality details, but strong for an annotated no-arg reader.

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 the verb and scope, then the enumerated contents. The long inline ID and vocabulary lists make it denser than ideal, but each clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to discover by calling the tool.

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 must convey return shape, and it does at a high level (id, title, description, character count, narrator flag, plus the named vocabularies). Only the exact JSON structure and whether the vocab lists are exhaustive remain unstated, which is a minor gap for a read-only catalog 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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description goes a step further by noting it 'takes no title_id', telling the agent not to attempt scoping. Nothing more is needed for an empty 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 and resource ('List the video formats of the iDos Games video studio') and scopes it to module video-studio / engine @idosgames/timeline. It also distinguishes itself from get_video_format (which gives a format's parameters) and implicitly from list_video_templates, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'get_video_format gives a format's parameters and how to write its lines', establishing this tool as the catalog-lookup first step. It doesn't spell out when-not to use it or a workflow ordering (e.g. call this before plan_video), but the context is clear enough.

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