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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results span team and personal scopes, are sorted by usage frequency, and bodies contain {{first_name}}/{{agent_name}}/{{product}} placeholders the agent must know about before using the text.

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 tight sentences with no waste. Scope and ordering are front-loaded, and the templating caveat is a genuinely necessary second thought rather than filler.

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 two-parameter read-only list with no output schema, the description covers scope, ordering and body format, which is most of what an agent needs. It stops short of describing pagination or the item shape, but annotations and the simple schema carry the rest.

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 both limit (default 50, max 200) and search (title/body/tags) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about the parameters, 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?

It names the resource (saved replies) and states the scope precisely: the team's shared set plus the caller's personal ones. The ordering (most used first) clarifies what kind of listing this is. It doesn't explicitly contrast with render_saved_reply or create_saved_reply, but the verb-resource pairing is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied — an agent infers this is for browsing available saved replies before rendering or editing one — but there is no explicit statement of when to use it versus render_saved_reply (fetch one reply's body) or list-style siblings. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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