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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of pagination, filtering defaults, or what the collection contains.

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 text is short but wastes half of itself by repeating the identical endpoint path sentence twice. The operation ID is a machine artifact rather than useful content, and there is no front-loaded explanation of the tool's effect.

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, two undocumented parameters including a free-form nested 'query' object, and no annotations gap to lean on, the description should explain what the endpoint returns and how to shape the query. It only defers to describe_operation, leaving the agent unable to call this confidently.

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?

Two parameters (query, params) exist at 0% schema description coverage, with no property names or types documented. The single sentence about describe_operation providing native request schemas is a useful hint about where parameters live, but it conveys no actual semantics for query or params.

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 only restates the endpoint path and title twice ('GET /api/check-request-templates'), giving no plain-language statement of what the tool returns or does. It doesn't distinguish this list endpoint from siblings like get_check_request_templates_by_id or get_check_request_templates_available_*, which share the same resource name.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this endpoint versus get_check_request_templates_by_id or the *_available variant. The only guidance is a pointer to describe_operation for schemas, which is about parameter discovery, not tool selection.

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