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 only a snippet of domain semantics ('current_definition is the YAML new agreements are created from'), with no mention of pagination behavior or result scope.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the resource is named first and the field gloss follows. Efficient, though the second sentence is marginal value for a caller who just wants to list.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required, and read-only annotations cover the safety profile. The description adequately identifies the resource; its only shortfall is failing to position custom templates against the plain templates and custom terms handled by siblings.

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 reported as 0% at the tool level and the description says nothing about the pagination parameters (page[size], page[number]). Although the nested schema fields do carry their own descriptions, the description itself contributes no parameter meaning, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('List custom templates') and qualifies it as 'YAML-defined templates', which implicitly separates it from the sibling list-templates. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting the sibling, so it lands just below the top mark.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus list-templates, list-custom-terms, or get-custom-template, and no stated prerequisites or filtering conditions. The second sentence is domain context about a field, not usage direction.

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