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

Annotations already cover read-only and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds useful context without needing to repeat safety. It clarifies active-only results, the public library scope, field set, and most-used-first ordering, which helps set expectations for what the call returns.

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 focused sentences with no filler. The first sentence states what the tool lists; the second gives the recommended next action. The key scope information is front-loaded.

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 a full input schema, output schema availability, and annotations defining read-only/non-destructive behavior, there is no meaningful gap in what an agent needs to select and invoke the tool. The description also connects it to the logical follow-up tool.

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 limit, scene, categoryId, isRecommended, and titleContains. The description adds workflow-level context about using the template id afterward, but it does not need to add parameter details because the schema fully handles that.

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 opens with a specific verb and object: it lists active templates from the public template library, and enumerates the fields returned. This clearly distinguishes it from list_forms and create_form_from_template because it identifies templates as the resource rather than forms.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use the tool: 'Use this to find a template, then call create_form_from_template with its id.' It also gives the decision criterion ('when a suitable template exists'). It stops short of saying when not to use it or naming an alternative such as create_form.

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