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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, non-destructive, and not open-world. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the catalog is hidden from the workspace picker and exists only for MCP seeding, and it disambiguates from Hook captions. No mention of auth or pagination is needed given the simple read-only nature.

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 sentences pack purpose, enumeration, catalog identity, visibility context, and an exclusion without wasted words. The key identifying information is front-loaded.

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 optional parameter, full parameter schema coverage, and an output schema, the description covers all selection and invocation needs. It also resolves the ambiguity against Hook captions, making it complete for an agent.

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%: the single intent parameter already has an enum and a descriptive comment. The description's 'Optional intent filter' adds no new semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description names a specific verb and resource: 'List Opening hooks script-opening templates', enumerates the four intent categories, and gives the catalog id. It explicitly contrasts itself with Hook captions, so it is distinguishable from related list tools without opening schemas.

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 states the intended context ('for MCP seeding'), notes that the workspace picker is hidden, and explicitly warns that this is not the Hook captions catalog. This gives an agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use signals, even though no alternative tool is named.

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