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

Annotations already disclose that the operation is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat those traits. It adds limited behavioral context by noting the templates are 'reusable' and scoped to funnels, but it does not disclose ordering, pagination behavior, or default filtering beyond what the schema offers.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words or filler. It conveys the essential purpose and scope efficiently.

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 no required parameters, fully described parameters, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. The funnel scope is the main additional context needed, and it is present.

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%, with all three parameters (limit, active, locale) fully documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but because the schema already provides complete semantics, the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('email templates'), and adds scope ('for funnels'), which clearly distinguishes it from single-item tools like get_email_template and mutation tools like save_email_template or archive_email_template. The title 'List Chasync email templates' reinforces the purpose.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_email_template for a single template or save_email_template for creating one. Usage is only implied by the verb 'List' and the sibling tool names, with no exclusions or conditions provided.

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