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 fully covered without the description. The description adds the useful fact that uploaded PDF templates are included in results, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result size beyond what the schema provides.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the parenthetical scope note is placed where it is most useful. It is efficient, though it leaves room for a sentence that would earn its place by distinguishing siblings.

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 values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a list tool sitting among several list-* and template tools, the description omits the routing information an agent needs to pick correctly, leaving a real completeness gap.

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 top-level queryParams object carries no description (0% coverage), but its nested properties (full, page[size], page[number]) are well documented in the schema with defaults and meanings. The phrase 'and their attributes' loosely gestures at the `full` parameter's type-specific attributes but adds no real syntax or behavior detail, so the baseline 3 holds.

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 names a specific verb (List) and resource (agreement templates) and adds a scope note that uploaded PDF templates are included, which is genuinely useful. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the sibling list-custom-templates, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list-custom-templates or get-template, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent gets the what but none of the routing guidance that this crowded sibling set demands.

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