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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, and the description reinforces it ('This tool only reads'). Beyond that it discloses the key behavioral trait that config is nulled out in list results and that every connection is seeded a Default of each kind, which the annotations do not convey. Minor gap: no pagination or result-size guidance.

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 return-shape and read-only points are front-loaded, but the middle sentence is a long catalogue enumerating nine-plus template categories (deduplication, normalize, segment, enrichment, scoring, verification, value maps, TAM, whitespace) that largely duplicates the tool_type enum in the schema. That enumeration is padding against structured data that already lists these values.

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?

Covers the essential context for a filtered-list tool: compact vs full config, seeding behavior, downstream usage, and filtering. No output schema exists, and it partially compensates by describing the compact item shape (id, tool_type, object_type, kind, name). Lacks pagination/limit disclosure, which is the main remaining gap.

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%, so all parameters are already documented, and the tool_type enum explicitly enumerates the filterable tool types. The description adds only loose framing ('Narrow with tool_type, object_type, or kind'), including the example kind values matching/master_record/survivorship, but does not go meaningfully beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb+resource (list rule and mapping configurations on a connection) and immediately defines the compact return shape. Distinguishes itself from the sibling get_rule_template by naming it and describing the difference (compact list vs full config).

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?

Explicit when-to-use: use an id from here as template_id on create_enrichment_run or template_ids on create_deduplication_run. It also names the alternative authoring path (create_rule_template) and notes the permission caveat that not every caller has it, which is genuinely actionable routing guidance.

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