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 fully covered by structured data. The description's real contribution is the return-content summary (slugs, titles, requirements, preview links), which matters because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about whether the list is account-scoped, paginated, or fixed in size.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler: the payload is stated first, the follow-up action second. Every 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 input parameters and no output schema, the description correctly takes on the job of describing return values and does so adequately for a simple read-only list. The only gap is scope/stability of the catalog — whether templates are account-specific or fixed — which an agent might reasonably want to know.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The mention of a slug is about the output value reused elsewhere, not an input, so no compensation is required.

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 names the resource (video templates) and enumerates exactly what is returned: slugs, titles, per-template requirements, and preview/example links. That is specific enough to separate it from get_video or list_media, though the enumeration verb is carried by the tool name rather than the prose.

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?

It gives a concrete downstream usage rule — pass a slug to make_video as templateId — which tells the agent this is the discovery step before video creation. It stops short of an explicit 'call this first when you don't know the templateId' statement or any exclusion, but the workflow cue is unambiguous.

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