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

Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the description is not required to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: only explicitly frozen flat-video-v1 versions are render-ready, they contain fixed video clips without personalization, and legacy/unsupported versions are unavailable.

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 short and front-loads the purpose in the first sentence before adding availability constraints. A little of the phrasing is dense and jargon-heavy, but there is no wasted verbiage.

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?

Because an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. However, it leaves out pagination guidance for limit/cursor and does not clarify how this list relates to templates_get or template_versions_list, leaving notable gaps for an agent selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the two parameters limit and cursor, and the description does not mention either. It does not explain pagination, cursor semantics, default page size, or maximum limit, so the description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 discovers 'authorized published template metadata,' which gives a resource and an action, but the verb 'discover' and jargon like 'safe projection' make the core list operation less immediate than a plain 'list templates'. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as templates_get or template_versions_list, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 description says legacy and unsupported versions remain unavailable and only frozen flat-video-v1 versions are render-ready, but that is availability context rather than when-to-use guidance. There is no explicit instruction on when to choose this tool over templates_get or template_versions_list.

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