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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so there is no safety contradiction. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: pricing models for each product, credit-pack prerequisites, duration limits, and the fact that music/subtitles are opt-in only when the user confirms.

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?

The description is one dense sentence, but every clause carries needed product distinctions and behavior. It is front-loaded with the resource name and list intent; only minor restructuring could make the pricing and options list easier to parse.

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 parameterless list tool whose safety profile is carried by annotations, this description is complete: it names the items being listed, their variants, pricing, length limits, and optional add-ons. An agent has enough context to invoke it and interpret its results without additional schema or output schema.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters and 100% description coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify about arguments. Per rubric, zero-parameter tools get a baseline 4; the description appropriately focuses on output content instead.

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 opens with 'Lists Kleo's one template...' and enumerates the exact resource and its subitems: the film and animatic products, including formats, durations, and pricing. This goes well beyond the title and clearly separates this informational tool from sibling tools like kleo_create_video or kleo_get_job.

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 content makes it obvious this is the discovery/lookup tool for Kleo's template and product options, but it never explicitly states when to call it versus alternatives or names exclusions. Usage is implied by the list semantics rather than stated as guidance.

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