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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and repeatability are covered. The description adds real behavioral content by disclosing the shape of what each template returns (services, questions, flow, optional steps, emergency handling), though it says nothing about result size or ordering.

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 resource and its contents, then the parameter behavior, then the workflow hint. Only mild redundancy: the industry examples ('HVAC, plumbing, roofing, dental, law') repeat the enum already in the schema.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so well by listing the template fields an agent will receive. For a single-optional-parameter read-only lookup, nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single parameter and its enum are already fully documented, including the 'omit to list all' behavior. The description largely restates that (industry id vs. omit, with industry examples that duplicate the enum), adding no format or lookup semantics beyond the schema.

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 (lists) and resource (ready-built AI receptionist templates by industry), and enumerates exactly what each template contains: services, questions, call flow, optional steps, emergency handling. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling design_ai_agent, which it explicitly positions against.

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 direct usage instructions for both modes: 'Give an industry id for one template, or omit it for the list.' It also routes the agent in the workflow with 'Use it before design_ai_agent,' making the sequencing with a sibling unambiguous.

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