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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description goes well beyond by disclosing the default filter (only patterns holding a Fabrement block), the scope behavior, and the returned fields (usedBy, foreign, templates). It also imposes a prerequisite rule (read the synced-pattern-contract skill doc first), which is meaningful behavioral context the annotations do not carry.

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-loads the core definition and return shape, then the scope/kind behavior, then the action rule. Dense but every clause earns its place, though the kind explanation is slightly long-tail for a list tool.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema and annotations already covering safety, the description supplies the missing pieces: filter defaults, scope semantics, and the skill-doc prerequisite. It is largely complete; the only untouched edge is pagination/limit behavior.

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 50% and two parameters (kind, scope) have bare enum values. The description compensates strongly: it explains the header/footer/section categories, ties header/footer to save-template headerPatternId/footerPatternId, and clarifies scope. Only `limit` goes undocumented in both places.

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 (list) and resource (synced patterns / global blocks), and even defines the concept ('edit once, every page placing one changes'). It enumerates the returned fields and distinguishes the filtering modes, so an agent knows exactly what this tool surfaces relative to siblings like get-synced-pattern.

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?

Gives explicit timing guidance ('Check here BEFORE saving a new one') and explains the scope default vs "all" routing. It stops short of naming the closest alternative (get-synced-pattern) or defining when-not to use it, so it is clear context without full exclusion logic.

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