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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, yet the description still adds substantive context: results are a safe projection only, only explicitly frozen flat-video-v1 versions are render-ready, and legacy/unsupported versions are excluded. That is real behavioral information beyond the annotation profile, though it stops short of describing ordering or how the cursor behaves.

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?

Three compact sentences with the scoping facts front-loaded, but the phrasing is dense and jargon-heavy ('safe projection', 'explicitly frozen flat-video-v1') and the opening 'Discover' is vague enough to waste the prime slot.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a paginated, id-scoped list tool with zero parameter documentation and no mention of the alternative template_versions_get, the description leaves important gaps for correct invocation.

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 parameter meaning, and it does not. Neither the required UUID 'id' (presumably the parent template) nor 'limit' nor 'cursor' is mentioned, leaving pagination and scoping entirely undocumented.

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 states it surfaces published template metadata and hints at version-level state ('frozen flat-video-v1 versions'), but it never uses a clear verb+resource like 'list versions of a template' and never mentions the required template id that drives the operation. It also does not distinguish itself from siblings template_versions_get or templates_list, so an agent must infer the resource from the name 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives. The closest thing is a partial exclusion ('legacy and unsupported versions remain unavailable'), which describes filtering behavior rather than a decision rule for choosing this tool over template_versions_get or templates_list.

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