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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds scoping context (company-scoped, user-uploaded) but does not describe other behaviors like pagination or return format. With annotations covering the core safety aspects, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 two short sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action and immediately provides the key differentiation from the builtin catalog. Every word earns its place.

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 simple listing tool with one parameter, output schema, and annotations, the description is complete. It covers what is listed, the scope, and the distinction from builtin templates. No additional behavioral details are needed given the structured data available.

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% and the schema describes companyId as a 'UUID value wrapper.' The description adds meaning by saying the list is 'company-scoped,' which clarifies that companyId represents the company whose templates to list. This goes beyond the schema's minimal wrapper description.

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 clearly states the tool lists company-scoped user-uploaded templates with the specific verb 'List' and resource. It also distinguishes from Lovie's builtin catalog, which differentiates it from sibling tools like document_template_list_templates.

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 gives clear context by noting these are user-uploaded templates and explicitly separates them from the builtin catalog. However, it does not name the alternative tool for builtin templates, so the guidance is not as explicit as it could be. Still, it provides a clear exclusion and implied usage.

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