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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose two non-obvious traits — that generations consume the same credits as the website, and that hidden template prompt text is not returned — plus a legal attestation gate. It omits whether the call is synchronous or returns a job handle, how many credits are spent, and what happens on invalid inputs, which are significant gaps for a creation tool.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no filler. The ordering is slightly off — the consent constraint interrupts the core input guidance — but nothing is wasteful.

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 14-parameter, unannotated, no-output-schema generation tool, the definition is thin: it does not describe the return value (only that it excludes hidden prompts) or most inputs. It covers the compliance gate and the two key creative inputs, which is the minimum viable set, but an agent would still be guessing on model, resolution, and media inputs.

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 only 14%, with 14 parameters and just consent and aspect_ratio documented in the schema. The description explains consent and the template_slug/prompt pairing but says nothing about model, count, resolution, video_action, audio, image_url, video_url, or the duration fields, so most parameters remain opaque.

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 a specific verb and resource — 'Start a RemixMeme generation' — and names the platform, so the agent knows this initiates a video generation job. It does not, however, contrast itself with siblings such as get_generation or list_generations, leaving that distinction to be inferred from the names 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?

The line 'Provide template_slug and/or prompt' gives a concrete input precondition, and the consent requirement is stated explicitly. There is no statement about when to prefer this over fetching a template first, no guidance on failure cases, and no mention of what to do with the result.

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