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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the list is stable (so caching/deduplication is reasonable), the call is cheap, and it prevents a wrong query_template call. It doesn't describe the return shape in detail, but no output schema exists and the envelope is only broadly sketched.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool is, then when to call it, then the cost/stability caveat. Every sentence carries actionable information and none repeats the schema or annotations.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining returns — and it does, naming parameters, allowed values, limits and the return envelope. Combined with the usage triggers and cost note, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and avoid redundant calls.

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, which is the baseline-4 case; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The mention of 'parameters, allowed values, limits' refers to the returned templates' parameters, not this tool's inputs, so it neither helps nor misleads on input semantics.

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 concrete verb+resource ('Self-description of the curated query path') and enumerates exactly what it returns: every template with its parameters, allowed values, limits and return envelope. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling query_template, which executes a template, and from the other retrieval tools.

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 triggers ('CALL THIS FIRST when unsure which template fits', 'when a query_template call returned an error about an unknown parameter') and an explicit exclusion ('Do not call it repeatedly within the same conversation'). The agent knows both when to use it and when not to.

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