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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful semantics about 'safe projection' and render-readiness of frozen versions, but 'safe projection only' is vague and it says nothing about authorization failure modes or what a non-render-ready response contains.

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 sentences with no filler, and the availability constraint is front-loaded. However, it is dense with internal jargon ('frozen flat-video-v1', 'safe projection') that costs the reader parsing effort for limited added clarity.

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 needn't be explained, and the tool is a simple single-parameter lookup. The main remaining gap is identifying what the id refers to and how this differs from its list/version siblings, which the description leaves unaddressed.

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?

There is one required parameter (id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it, its UUID format, or whether it refers to a template id versus a version id. With no schema prose to lean on, the description should have compensated and does not.

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 indicates retrieval of template metadata ('Discover authorized published template metadata'), but the verb 'Discover' is vague for a by-ID getter and it never states that it fetches a single template by id. It also doesn't distinguish itself from templates_list or template_versions_get, leaving the agent to infer the difference 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?

It supplies availability context (only frozen flat-video-v1 versions are render-ready, legacy versions unavailable), but gives no explicit guidance on when to call this versus templates_list or template_versions_get. The agent must work out the selection logic itself.

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