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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is low. The description still adds value by disclosing what the result rows contain and by naming the downstream consumer of templateId. The trailing "Read-only" merely restates the annotations and slightly weakens the addition.

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 front-loaded sentence carries purpose, contents, and the workflow link; nothing is buried. The appended "Read-only." is redundant with the annotations, and the long parenthetical example list is informative but could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly steps in to describe the returned fields, and it names the sibling that consumes the output. Remaining gaps are minor for a zero-required-parameter read tool: no mention of ordering, pagination, or whether results vary by locale.

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 100% and the single `locale` parameter is fully documented in the schema with its enum and default, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no information about how locale affects results beyond what the schema already says (language of template and task names).

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 ("Lists the ready-made project templates ... and the templates saved by the user") and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, number of tasks, typical duration). The parenthetical template examples make the scope concrete and distinguish it from siblings like planitude_list_projects or planitude_list_baselines.

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?

Explicitly ties the output to the next step: "The templateId is the input of planitude_create_project_from_template," which tells the agent exactly when this tool precedes that one. It does not state any exclusion (e.g., when to browse templates versus create a blank project), so it falls short of a full when/when-not treatment.

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