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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: results are ordered newest first, each item carries a kind discriminator, and the call requires Portant connected with an active sign-in. Only minor gaps remain (no pagination/limit behavior), so it lands just below the top.

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 load-bearing: what is returned, when to use it and when to use the sibling, and the connection prerequisite. The most decision-relevant content (the output and the routing rule) is front-loaded with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields and their possible values, plus the auth prerequisite. For a zero-parameter read tool this is everything an agent needs to call it and interpret the result.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline is 4. The description usefully notes there is no filtering surface, implicitly telling the agent that filtering is find_templates' job.

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 ('Show the user all their saved templates') and goes further by naming the return shape (template_id, name, kind with the enum values markdown/pdf/google_doc) and ordering (newest first). This is enough for an agent to distinguish it from get_template, find_templates and the mutation siblings without opening any 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 scopes usage ('Use it only when the user asks to see, open or manage their templates') with a concrete trigger phrase, and names the alternative with its selecting condition ('To check if a template fits a document the user wants to send, use find_templates instead'). Both the when and the when-not are present.

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