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

While annotations handle safety (readOnlyHint), the description adds valuable behavioral context by defining the nature of the items ('Snippets of copy, not sequence shapes') and how they function in a workflow, which is essential for accurate tool selection.

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 dense with information, utilizing every sentence to define the tool's scope, purpose, and relationship to other tools. It is slightly verbose but perfectly structured for routing and contextualization.

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 lack of an output schema and the list nature of the tool, the description is highly complete by providing explicit mapping to related tools (`template_get`, `flow_set`) and defining what the result represents (copy vs. full flow).

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 parameters, the baseline score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not need to compensate for a lack of schema, and provides no unnecessary parameter context.

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 identifies the resource as 'Saved copy your team reuses' and specifies that it contains 'Snippets of copy', distinguishing it from multi-step sequences and naming the relevant sibling tools (`flow_from_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?

It provides explicit usage guidelines by explaining the context ('Paste the body into a step when authoring a sequence') and defining the alternative scope (full multi-step sequences are handled by `flow_from_template` and single templates by `template_get`).

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