List saved products and testimonials

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavioral context: results include shared public talents flagged by isPublic, and each entry carries asset ids. It doesn't mention pagination, result limits, or ordering behavior beyond what the schema says.

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 core statement of what is listed comes first, followed by the usage hint and the public-talent caveat. The parenthetical field enumerations with ellipses are slightly noisy but they do convey value, so the density is largely earned.

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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so for both resource types, including asset ids and the isPublic marker. What's missing is ordering/limit behavior and any hint about the `type` filter's effect on results, which matters for a three-parameter lister.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description maps its subject matter onto the `type` values (products vs testimonials) and hints at isPublic, but it never explains the `type` enum options, the 'all' default, or the ordering effect of `projectId`. It adds modest meaning over the schema rather than compensating for the undocumented enum parameter.

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 names a concrete verb (list) and two concrete resources (saved PRODUCTS and TESTIMONIALS/characters) and enumerates the fields returned (name, category, colors, material; name, gender, age, look; asset ids). That is enough to separate it from vivid_list_assets, though the description never names that near-sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 gives a clear downstream purpose: use these names in vivid_generate_image's `products` / `testimonials` parameters to feature them with a locked look, equating this to typing #Product / @Testimonial in the app. There is no explicit when-not guidance or comparison against vivid_list_assets / vivid_get_asset, so it stops short of full routing.

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