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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add context. It does so usefully by disclosing the composition of results (own + system templates) and the 'API Layout {code}' naming convention for survey-dedicated copies.

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 tightly packed sentences with no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the disambiguation and the downstream handoff, all of which earn their place.

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 described, and the description still adds the naming convention and result composition. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly and route the result is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on output semantics (what the listed items are) rather than inventing parameter guidance.

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 (lists LAYOUT templates) and clarifies scope: the account's own templates plus built-in system templates. It explicitly distinguishes the resource from surveys, which is exactly what an agent needs to avoid confusing it with list_surveys.

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 states when NOT to use this tool ('it is NOT a survey to clone from') and names the alternative route (list_surveys + clone_survey). It also names the downstream consumer by telling the agent to pass the returned ID to apply_layout.

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