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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, closed-world, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that only 'published' families are listed and that filtering is optional, which is useful context, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination, or return granularity.

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. The listing scope comes first and the optional filter is mentioned second, so every part earns its place.

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 simple read-only listing tool with one optional enum parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It could say more about what each returned template family contains, but the core selection and invocation information is present.

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 0%, so the description must carry semantic weight. It clarifies that 'aspect' means output aspect ratio and is optional, which is helpful, but it does not explain the allowed enum values or formatting beyond what the schema already shows.

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 gives a specific verb (list) and resource (published Remotion template families), making it distinguishable from get_template and list_carousel_templates by scope and content type. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the resource itself is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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 phrase 'optionally filter by output aspect ratio' implies when the single parameter is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, when-not-to-use guidance, or comparison to sibling listing tools. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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