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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower; the description still adds two things annotations cannot convey: the required auth scope and the prompt-injection caveat that author-written text is returned in untrusted_fields and must be shown, never executed. It stops short of describing ordering, pagination or result volume, which would be the remaining behavioral gaps.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, then prerequisite, then safety note — nothing redundant. The untrusted_fields sentence is slightly awkwardly phrased ('Text people wrote is listed in untrusted_fields') but each sentence earns its place.

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 parameterless read-only list tool with annotations covering safety, the definition covers purpose, auth and output-handling hazards. With no output schema, a brief note on what a template entry contains or whether the list is paginated would close the last 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?

Zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The auth scope mention is the only parameter-adjacent detail and it is not part of the JSON schema, which slightly increases its value.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List document templates'), which is unambiguous against the other list_* siblings such as list_locations or list_mixes. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from any related document tool (e.g. convert_document, edit_document), but the resource noun alone is enough to pick it out.

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 requirement of the `bookings:read` scope is useful pre-call context, and the no-parameter schema makes the intended call obvious. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over alternatives or any exclusion (e.g. whether templates differ from documents fetched by convert_document/get_file).

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