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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds extra behavioral context: 'deterministic' results and 'does not process or generate media', which clarifies that this tool is purely a listing operation with no side effects beyond pagination. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose and scoping constraints, and includes a clarifying caveat about not processing media. Every sentence serves a purpose with zero fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (list with pagination and optional filter), the presence of a full output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description is complete. It explains the bounded page nature, the optional filter, and the opaque cursor, which is all an agent needs to call it correctly. No critical information 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%: all three parameters (limit, cursor, projectId) are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning—it mentions the opaque cursor and optional filter, but these are already implied by the schema. The description does not provide additional format or usage details beyond what the schema offers, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

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', the resource (deterministic Imagelato resizing and reformatting presets), and the scope (in the signed-in organization, optionally filtered by project id). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from media processing tools by stating 'It does not process or generate media.' This gives an agent a precise understanding of the tool's function.

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 implies usage: it is for listing templates with pagination and optional filtering. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives like get_template or list_projects. There is no explicit when-not guidance or reference to sibling tools, so the usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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