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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so 'read-only' is largely redundant. The description nonetheless adds genuinely new behavioral facts not in annotations: the sort order (most recently used first), the visibility scope (own + team shared), and that the call is free.

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 tight sentences with the scope and ordering front-loaded, then the payload description, then the routing hint. No filler.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what each returned template holds (content type, topic, angle, audience, register, key points, extra direction, length), and annotations already cover the safety profile. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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 baseline is 4. The description does add the useful cross-tool convention that a template's id is passed as template_id elsewhere, but there are no input parameters to document.

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+resource (list brief templates) with explicit scope: the user's own plus team-shared templates, returned most-recently-used first. It is immediately distinguishable from save_brief_template and delete_brief_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?

Explains the downstream purpose clearly — pass a template's id as template_id to create_outline or generate_content — which tells the agent why it would call this tool. It does not, however, state when not to use it or contrast it against any alternative listing path.

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