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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context: it filters to 'active templates' and orders by 'most-used first', which is useful for understanding the result set. It does not go into pagination details, but the annotations plus description cover the essential behavior without contradiction.

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 two sentences long with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, output fields, and ordering; the second sentence gives a direct workflow pointer to the next tool. It is front-loaded and every word earns its 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the presence of an output schema, annotations that declare read-only safety, and a fully documented parameter schema, the description covers all necessary context. It tells the agent what to do, why, and how to follow up, making it complete for correct invocation.

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?

All five parameters are fully documented in the schema with descriptions (100% coverage), so the schema already provides the necessary meaning. The tool description does not add extra parameter details beyond what is in the schema, but it does mention the returned fields that relate to the output, which is a slight bonus. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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 states the verb 'List' and the resource 'active templates in the public template library', enumerates the returned fields, and specifies the ordering. It also distinguishes from sibling list tools like list_forms by focusing on templates and explicitly connecting to create_form_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?

The description gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool: to find a template, and then directs the agent to call create_form_from_template with the template id. It also frames this as the fastest way to build a quiz when a suitable template exists, implicitly telling the agent to prefer this path over directly creating a form.

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