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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior — that template body content is omitted from results and that IDs are interoperable with two other tools — though it says nothing about pagination or rate behavior.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The returned-fields list and the filtering capability come first, with cross-tool routing placed after, which is the right order for an agent scanning for fit.

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, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and flags the content exclusion, which is the key completeness risk. Minor gap: it does not describe pagination behavior or default page size, though the schema covers those defaults.

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 already documents every parameter's meaning, defaults, and ranges. The description names the filter categories (template_type, status, category_id, search_name, sort) but adds no syntax or semantics beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('List') and resource ('saved email templates') and enumerates the fields returned (name, ID, editor, type, status, dates). It contrasts itself with get_template, so an agent can distinguish this list tool from the single-record reader without inspecting schemas.

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 says content is not included and routes the agent to get_template for that need. It also tells the agent that drag-and-drop template IDs are valid inputs to edit_dnd_email and create_campaign template_id, giving clear downstream usage.

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