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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description bears a lower burden. It adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — 'Server assigns row layout' — meaning the caller cannot control placement, but says nothing about the shape of returned templates or whether they are user-specific or global.

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. It is efficient, though the brevity edges into under-specification rather than crispness.

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 is the only place return values could be explained — yet it never says what a template contains (an ID, name, block type, default config) that the agent would need to call report_add_block. For a discovery/list tool feeding a downstream write, this is a real 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to convey; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. Nothing in the description misleads about inputs.

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?

Says 'Get complete block templates', giving a verb and resource, but 'complete block templates' is left undefined and the description never states that this enumerates all available templates nor how it differs from siblings like report_preview_block or report_add_block, which operate on blocks the agent would presumably create from these templates.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of the natural workflow (list templates, then call report_add_block), and no exclusion or alternative named. The agent must infer the call sequence from sibling names alone.

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