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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The word 'valid' adds a small behavioral signal — the returned example should satisfy the VideoSpec schema — but the description says nothing about whether the example is meant to be edited and resent, or how it relates to scaffold_video_spec output. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 ten-word sentence with no filler and the key concept ('starter example') front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity edges toward under-specification rather than crispness.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only place the return value is characterized, and it only says 'valid starter example' without stating the artifact type (a VideoSpec object, presumably JSON). For a one-parameter read tool this is roughly adequate, but the missing linkage to sibling tools and the unstated return shape leave a real gap.

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 the templateId enum lists all five families, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The phrase 'one template family' mirrors the schema description without adding selection guidance (e.g. which family fits which use case). Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Return a valid starter example' — the agent knows it produces an example artifact rather than a schema or a live project. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_template, get_video_schema, or scaffold_video_spec, so the agent must infer the difference from the name alone.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite a crowded sibling set containing several plausible substitutes (get_template, scaffold_video_spec, get_video_schema). The agent is left to guess whether this is the right call for bootstrapping a spec versus reading a template definition.

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