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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds that these are curated built-in scaffolds rather than user content, and that the returned 'kind' is a reusable key. It does not discuss whether categories can be empty or whether templates can be modified, which would be the next layer of value.

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, each earning its place: what the library is, what it returns, and how to use the result. The identity of the resource is front-loaded and the chaining instructions follow in logical order.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose explanation, yet the description still summarises the shape (categories plus kind/title/description/category) for quick orientation. For a zero-parameter, read-only discovery tool, nothing an agent needs 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does useful adjacent work by explaining the meaning of the 'kind' value that the output feeds into other tools, which is the one semantic an agent needs to act on the result.

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 and resource ('Browse the template library') and immediately disambiguates the content with concrete examples (flowchart, SWOT, gantt, retrospective), so it cannot be confused with list_images or find_documents. It also names exactly what a template is in this product's terms ('the same hand-tuned scaffolds the editor's Quick Start offers').

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 an explicit downstream workflow: 'Pass a kind as "template" on create_document / add_tab to start from it, then personalise the labels with update_document.' It names the sibling tools, the field to carry over, and the follow-up step, leaving nothing to inference.

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