List animation templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured fields. The description adds only marginal extra context — "provider scopes, locks and credits apply" hints at auth/scope and metering concerns, though it stays vague and unspecified. "Read operation" merely repeats readOnlyHint.

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 short fragments with minimal waste, and the endpoint is front-loaded. However, "Read operation" is redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation, so not every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a list tool with two parameters, no output schema, and only 50% schema coverage, the description leaves important gaps: pagination behavior of `page` and the shape/nature of the returned template list are unexplained. The mention of provider scopes, locks, and credits is the only substantive context provided.

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 50%: the `account` parameter is documented in the schema, but `page` (pagination, min 1, max 1000000) has no description anywhere. The tool description adds nothing about parameters, so it fails to compensate for the uncovered `page` semantics or explain pagination behavior.

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 the resource via the raw endpoint "GET /v5/animation_templates", and the tool name implies listing animation templates, so the purpose is inferable. But it never states in prose what the tool does (list/retrieve available animation templates), and it gives no differentiation from siblings like list_animations or list_image_templates. This is closer to a restatement of the name/path than a specific verb+resource statement.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus list_animations, get_animation_template, or create_animation_template. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative-selection guidance. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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