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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's 'Account-level, read-only' adds a small amount of context. The description also discloses what each entry contains (name, subtitle, glyph, description, category, scope, structure summary), which helps the agent understand the return shape without an output schema. It doesn't mention pagination or ordering, but for a list tool with one optional filter, this is adequate.

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?

The description is a single dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and return contents, then adds the two consumption paths. It earns its length by explaining the entry fields and the follow-up tools, though it could be slightly tighter by trimming the parenthetical examples.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return entry fields, the account-level scope, and the two follow-up actions. It doesn't describe pagination or sorting, but those are minor gaps for this tool's simplicity.

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 schema already documents the single 'scope' parameter. The description adds the meaning of the filter values ('system' curated, 'user' your own), which is helpful but not essential. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('reusable model templates'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by clarifying it returns curated system templates plus the user's own. It also names the two sibling tools that consume the results (layerz_create_model, layerz_build_from_blueprint), which makes its role in the workflow clear.

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?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool (to pick the right base from a prompt) and names the alternatives for the next step (fork vs. apply as a module). It also notes the optional scope filter for system vs. user templates. This is strong routing guidance.

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