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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds value by clarifying that templates persist canonical commands but do not execute generations (a key misconception an agent could have) and that owner-only entries are hidden unless requested. Return shape and pagination behavior are not described.

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 sentences, mostly dense and front-loaded, but the middle fragment 'Keeps identify which values apply' is broken and wastes space without conveying anything actionable. Otherwise there is little redundancy.

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 9-parameter, zero-required listing tool with no output schema, the description covers filtering, sorting defaults conceptually, and the Demo/get_template workflow. It never sketches what a returned template looks like, so an agent must infer the response shape from the schema alone.

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 coverage is 67%, and the description compensates by naming the filter axes — kind, scope, command use case, creator, public t-xxxx share code — and usage sorting, mapping them to use_case, catalog_scope, created_by_profile_id, share_code and sort. It adds interpretive meaning (e.g. 'command use case') beyond the raw enum fields, though pagination controls go unmentioned.

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?

Opens with a concrete verb+resource ('List canonical company templates') and enumerates the filter dimensions plus sorting, which separates it from sibling list tools like list_briefs or list_art_directions. The fragment 'Keeps identify which values apply' is garbled and slightly muddies an otherwise precise statement of purpose.

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?

Gives real routing guidance: system templates named 'Demo — …' are worked examples, and the agent should read one via `get_template` before authoring a first brief or workflow. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use and doesn't contrast with other list tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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