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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by declaring "Free" — notable in a tool set that includes estimate_credits and earnings_estimate — and by disclosing the shape of the returned pairs (code + name).

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: verb, resource, scope, the practical instruction for the code, and the cost note. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 params and no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden itself and does so ("code + name"), while annotations cover the read-only safety profile. Nothing an agent needs to call and use this tool is missing.

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 are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's mention of "code + name" describes the response rather than inputs, but it is still useful framing for a no-arg enumeration tool.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list languages) and scopes it precisely: the languages WowReveal can write scripts, voiceovers, captions, titles and post kits in. That scope makes it distinguishable from the other list_* siblings (list_voices, list_caption_styles, list_templates), which cover different resource families.

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?

"Use the code as `language`" tells the agent both why it would call this tool and how the returned value feeds downstream calls. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative tools that consume a language (write_script, generate_voiceover) or stating when not to call it, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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