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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which indicate a safe read operation)Skip. The description adds little beyond the annotations, but it does mention the resource type. It does not disclose pagination behavior, default page/size, or whether the list is sorted. With annotations covering the primary safety traits, this is acceptable but not enriched.

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 sentence with no redundancy. It is concise and gets to the point. However, it could be more structured with a bit more context without adding bulk.

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 list tool with a read-only annotation, the description covers the basic action and resource. It lacks information about pagination defaults (e.g., page=1, size=20), whether company_id is required to filter, and what the response structure looks like (though no output schema exists). Given the high number of sibling tools)Skip and the potential for confusion with other list operations, the description does not provide enough context to ensure correct usage.

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 only 25%, meaning the 'view' parameter is described in the schema. The description does not add any parameter semantic details for page, size, or company_id, which are left to the agent's guessing. Since coverage is low, the description should compensate but doesn't. However, 'company_id' is easily inferred from 'of a company', and 'page'/'size' are standard pagination, so partial compensation exists.

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 the verb 'List' and the resource 'email templates of a company', making the purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate from similar list tools like 'hires_list_messages' or 'hires_get_email_template', and the phrase 'of a company' is generic without specifying that company_id is needed. It is adequate but lacks specificity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this lists templates while 'hires_get_email_template' retrieves a single template, or how it differs from other list tools. There are no prerequisites or context clues, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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