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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is safe to call. The description adds that it returns a ready-to-use config example and is a static catalog, which is useful. However, it does not detail the output structure beyond that, but given annotations cover safety, score 3 is appropriate.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose and concrete detailsheb. The second sentence explains when to use it, and the third adds a clarifying constraint. No waste, though it could be slightly more concise by merging the second and third sentences, but overall it is efficient.

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 zero parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent why to use it (to get cadence_config example), what it returns (templates with details), and its scope (static). The output schema covers the exact structure, so nothing critical 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?

With zero parametersches, the schema provides no information, so the description carries full burden. It succinctly explains the content of the output (retry interval, defaults, example) which is key for using the tool. Although it does not describe each field in the output schema, that may be covered by the output schema itself. A score of 4 is justified because it clearly communicates what the tool returns without needing parameter descriptions.

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 tool lists workflow templates with specific details (retry intervals, defaults, cadence_config example), distinguishing it from generic list tools. It also explains the purpose of informing create_campaign, which differentiates it from other 'list_' siblings.

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?

Explicitly instructs to call this before create_campaign, providing a clear use case and routing rationale. It also mentions that it is a static catalog with no per-business state, which implies when it might not be needed (e.g., for dynamic data), and indirectly contrasts with create_campaign.

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