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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing the return payload (id, sheet names, component census by node type, canvas notes), which matters because no output schema exists.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then return contents, then routing. Three sentences is slightly long for a list tool, but every sentence carries information (payload shape, alternatives, usage trigger) rather than filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it names the follow-on tools and resource URI. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke this zero-arg tool is missing.

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, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter syntax to explain. The description correctly notes that an id produced here can be passed to solve_design or get_template, which is the only useful cross-tool data-flow hint.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus resource (shipped power-tree design templates) with scope clarified against siblings: it lists templates, whereas get_template reads a full design and list_designs covers user designs. An agent can distinguish it from the rest of the sibling set immediately.

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?

Explicit routing guidance: start here when the user describes a design that likely already exists, then use get_template or the ea://templates/{id} resource to read one, or pass an id to solve_design. Names concrete alternatives and the conditions that select them.

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