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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: results are computed per event (readiness varies by event_id), which tells the agent the same call with a different event_id can yield different readiness values.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler. The 'what it returns' clause is front-loaded and the follow-up action is second, which matches the agent's decision order.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description supplies the one thing structured fields can't — that readiness is event-scoped and templates feed create_flow. Minor gap: no mention of ordering or whether the list is fixed versus event-dependent in size.

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 the single event_id is documented as coming from search_events. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that event_id drives the per-template readiness annotation in the response, not just a filter.

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?

Specific verb (List) plus specific resource (flow templates nunify ships), and the phrase 'templates nunify ships' implicitly separates it from list_flows which returns existing flows. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the distinction relies on the agent inferring template-vs-instance.

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?

Clear context: use this when you want a catalog of available templates plus this event's readiness, and the second sentence states the downstream action (pass a template_key to create_flow). No explicit exclusions or contrast against list_flows/get_flow, so it's clear context without routing rules.

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