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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond those annotations: it promises only safe metadata, emphasizes the active/reusable filter, and scopes results to the connected workspace.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The core action and scope are front-loaded, and the pointer to the alternative tool is placed at the end without disrupting the main purpose.

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 list tool with strong annotations, an output schema, and fully documented optional parameters, the description is sufficient. It also anticipates the likely follow-up need by directing the agent to get_invoice_template for deeper semantics.

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 the schema fully documents both parameters, including the status const and the documentType enum. The description does not need to repeat parameter details; the baseline 3 applies because it adds no extra semantic value over the schema for parameter usage.

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 opens with a specific verb ('List') and a precise resource ('active reusable invoice templates available in the connected workspace'). It also explicitly contrasts this listing tool with get_invoice_template, so an agent can distinguish it from the closest sibling 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?

It clearly states the scope ('active reusable templates') and the safe-metadata-only nature of the result, then names the alternative tool for the richer semantic preset. This gives the agent an explicit routing rule: use this for safe metadata, use get_invoice_template for the full validated preset.

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