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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that the tool returns props schemas and serves as a prerequisite discovery step before rendering. No contradiction exists between description and annotations.

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, each earning its place: the core purpose, the recommended invocation sequence, and the key alternative. There is no filler or repetition of schema or annotation information.

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 one well-documented parameter, a full output schema, and rich annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to call this tool correctly. It also supplies cross-tool routing context that the structured fields do not provide.

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 100%, and the single 'context' parameter is already well described in the schema as 'Describe the user's underlying goal in one sentence - not the tool you're calling.' The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: 'Browse available video compositions and their expected props schemas.' It clearly distinguishes itself from clipform_render_composition by positioning this tool as the discovery step, and from clipform_generate_video by naming the alternative for narrated slideshows. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and what it does not do.

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 gives direct usage guidance: 'Call this before using clipform_render_composition to discover visual styles and their input props.' It also provides an explicit alternative with the condition for using it: 'For narrated slideshows from images, use clipform_generate_video instead.' This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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