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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying that it 'Returns template IDs and descriptions' and implies it does not return full HTML (since it directs to handout-template-get for that). This clarifies the scope of the read operation beyond the annotation's safety profile.

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?

The description is three concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the primary purpose, states the output, and then gives workflow context. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 simple listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, how it differs from the sibling, and the recommended workflow. Annotations already cover safety, so nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 schema description for the 'category' parameter is already informative ('Filter by category: wanted-poster, letter, scroll, decree, etc.'), covering 100% of the schema. The tool description does not add additional insight about the parameter, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'handout templates', with concrete examples ('wanted posters, letters, scrolls, etc.'). It explicitly differentiates from the sibling 'handout-template-get' by stating it returns only IDs and descriptions, not the full HTML, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 description provides explicit workflow guidance: 'Use handout-template-get to read the full HTML. Then generate a unique variation with your own content and save via journal-page-create.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool (to browse templates) and what to do next, effectively routing to the correct siblings without ambiguity.

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