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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the tenant-scoping constraint, which is genuinely beyond the annotations, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or whether archived/draft templates are included by default.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Nothing needs to be trimmed and the key scope (tenant) is stated immediately.

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?

The tool is simple and has no output schema, so the description need not explain return values. However, for a filtered list endpoint it should at least indicate default filtering behavior and result scope, which it omits.

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 0%, so the description carried the burden of explaining the single parameter and does not. It never says that `status` narrows the list by lifecycle state or what happens when it is omitted, leaving the agent to infer semantics from the enum values alone.

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 ("List") and a specific resource ("LLM-as-a-judge evaluation templates") plus the scoping unit ("current tenant"). It is clearly distinct from llm_judge_get or llm_judge_create by naming, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 guidance on when to call this versus the other llm_judge_* tools, nor on when to supply a status filter versus omitting it. Usage is only implied by the "list" verb and the tool name.

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