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. The description adds value by disclosing what the response contains — descriptive metadata (purpose, aspect ratios, scene kinds) plus a pointer to an example — which is important since no output schema exists.

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 with no filler; every clause names a distinct returned facet.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and the schema fully documenting the parameter, the remaining gap is the undocumented return shape, which the description addresses by listing returned fields. It could go further by explaining what 'example identifier' is used for (presumably passing to get_example).

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% and the single enum parameter is documented as a 'Template family from list_templates.' The description says nothing about templateId beyond 'one template's', so the schema carries all parameter semantics — 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one template') and enumerates the returned facets (purpose, aspect ratios, scene kinds, example identifier), which makes the tool's scope clear. It does not explicitly contrast with the close sibling list_templates, so an agent must infer singular-vs-list from the wording.

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 only implied: 'one template's' signals a single-item lookup rather than enumeration, and the schema's enum description points back to list_templates. There is no explicit statement of when to use this instead of list_templates or get_video_schema, and no stated prerequisites.

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