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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries real weight and adds non-obvious behavior: templateId does NOT narrow the list and only guarantees the template's existing picks survive the search, and a template value of "" means default. This counterintuitive filter behavior is exactly the kind of trait an agent would otherwise mispredict.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the field list and usage hint. Dense but every clause carries information (fields, workflow, filter quirk); the field enumeration is arguably slightly heavy given an output schema exists, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Covers purpose, workflow, and the filter semantics for a read-only list tool whose annotations already establish its safety profile and whose output schema documents the return shape. Nothing critical is missing; listing the return fields is mildly redundant against the output schema but not harmful.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description goes beyond the per-parameter text by explaining the cross-parameter interaction: templateId guarantees picks are included 'whatever the search', clarifying how templateId and search compose. That is genuine added meaning over the schema's isolated field descriptions.

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 a precise resource (the records a template can be assigned to), then enumerates the returned fields (id, title, status, postType, typeLabel, template, isFront). This distinguishes it from near-siblings like list-template-pages vs list-archive-records or list-templates, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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 workflow guidance — 'Use it to gather ids before assign-template-pages' — which names the downstream alternative and the condition for choosing this tool. It does not state an explicit when-not case (e.g. when to prefer list-templates instead), so it falls just short of a 5.

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