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

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false already tell the agent this is a safe, self-contained read, so the description's remaining burden is low. It adds useful provenance ('the same hand-tuned scaffolds the editor's Quick Start offers') but discloses nothing about result volume, ordering, or pagination, and the field-by-field return shape largely duplicates the output schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then the workflow hook. The parenthetical template list is compressed and the trailing ellipsis avoids enumerating the full catalogue; nothing is padded.

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 takes no input, has an output schema covering the response, and annotations covering safety. The description supplies what structured fields cannot: where the templates come from and how the returned kind plugs into create_document/add_tab/update_document. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still adds real meaning by explaining what the returned 'kind' value is for — it is the token consumed by create_document/add_tab to instantiate a template, which is not inferable from an empty input schema.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Browse the template library') with immediate scope qualification — it names the exact template types (kanban, flowchart, SWOT, gantt, wireframes) and states the per-item shape ({ kind, title, description, category }). No sibling tool lists templates, so the resource is unambiguous within the tool set.

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?

Goes beyond a bare description by routing the agent downstream: pass a returned kind as "template" on create_document / add_tab, then personalise labels with update_document. That is explicit follow-on guidance. It does not state a when-not-to-use condition, but no competing sibling exists for browsing templates, so the omission is minor.

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