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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive profile, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious semantics: the returned body is the same content StepEditor.applyEmailTemplate() would copy into a step, and edits to a template afterward do NOT affect cadences that already used it. That snapshot/copy behavior is real value beyond structured fields. Pagination and result-size limits are still undisclosed.

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?

Purpose and location are front-loaded, and the copy-semantics warning is well placed at the end. Some space is wasted on an emoji-decorated header and on the internal code reference "StepEditor.applyEmailTemplate()", which an agent cannot act on.

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?

For a 2-parameter read-only list with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and explains downstream consequences of using a template. What remains thin is behavior under search/filtering and whether results are paginated.

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% and both parameters (search filter on name/subject, admin-only target_user_id) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about how search matches or what target_user_id changes in the result, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Lista os templates de e-mail salvos") plus the exact location ("aba 'E-mail' de /templates") and the returned fields (nome, assunto, corpo completo). It also names the downstream tools it feeds (create_sequence/update_sequence) and the send_email step context, which distinguishes it from the create/update/delete template 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?

Gives a concrete when-to-use: "Use pra achar o template certo antes de montar um step send_email numa cadência", naming the alternative workflow. It stops short of explicitly excluding sibling list tools such as list_quick_replies or list_whatsapp_templates, so the routing is clear but not exhaustive.

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