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

Annotations already declare a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds real context beyond that: it enumerates each entry's fields (name, subtitle, glyph, description, category, scope, structure summary) and notes that `template_id` switches to a full single-template return including the blueprint. No pagination or size limits are mentioned, keeping it below a 5.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with what is listed before describing entry contents and downstream usage. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the enumeration scope, per-entry field contents, the single-retrieval mode, and the follow-up tools to act on a template. 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that `template_id` returns that single template 'in full, blueprint included' and by framing `scope` as the system-vs-user distinction, which is more than a restatement of the field docs.

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 (Lists) and resource (reusable model templates), and distinguishes the two sub-scopes (`system` curated vs caller's `user` templates). It also clarifies the two operational modes — list vs single-template retrieval via `template_id` — so an agent can tell exactly what the tool does without opening the schema.

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 routes the agent downstream: fork through `layerz_create_model { template_id }` and apply as a module through `layerz_build_from_blueprint { template_id }`. That is strong alternative/next-step guidance, though it doesn't state a when-not condition (e.g. when to prefer this over `layerz_list_models`).

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