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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the catalog is first-party product content and contains no tenant data, which tells an agent why the scope is limited and what it can never return.

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 compact clauses in two sentences: what it lists, its data scope, and where to go next. The core purpose is front-loaded and no sentence is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the fields returned. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and full schema coverage of the two filters, an agent has everything needed to call this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with 'search' documented as a substring match on id/tags and 'category' carrying a five-value enum, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'size/density and tags' refers to output fields, not the search/category parameters, adding essentially nothing to parameter understanding beyond the baseline.

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 and resource ('List ... label template catalog') and enumerates the returned fields (id, English name, category, size/density, tags). It explicitly distinguishes itself from template_get, the sibling that retrieves a single template.

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 explicit routing to alternatives: 'Fetch one with template_get; render its ZPL with zpl_preview,' establishing the list-then-fetch-then-render workflow. It stops short of stating when this tool should not be used (e.g., for tenant/custom templates), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not coverage.

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