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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: ordering by most used, the list-vs-single mode, and semantics of configuration.methodId and configuration.questions.

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?

Two focused sentences with the primary action and scope front-loaded. The second sentence is dense with useful domain semantics, though phrases like 'fixed, pre-registered instrument' add jargon without much additional clarity.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, this covers the essential behaviors: list vs single retrieval, ordering, and key response fields. Pagination and permissions are not mentioned, but annotations and schema fill most of the remaining gaps.

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?

The sole parameter templateId has 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description goes further by clarifying the consequence of providing an ID ('returns one exact template'), which explains the parameter's behavioral effect.

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 action ('Lists'), resource ('Study templates'), scope ('your own and team-shared'), and behavior ('most used first'). The dual-mode description ('or returns one exact template') clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_studies and list_study_drafts.

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 clearly implies this is the template-listing/retrieval tool, but it never names alternatives or gives explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance. Routing away from list_study_drafts or manage_study_template is left to the agent's inference.

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