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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: only enabled templates are returned, and the body text is rendered as a merchant with no first name on file would read it, which tells the agent the output is substituted, not raw. That is useful context beyond the structured fields.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the batch/preview context. Every clause carries information, though the preview_batch sentence is slightly tangential to a pure listing call.

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 does the work of explaining the return shape (id, rendered words, segments) and the enabled-only filter. Ordering, pagination and whether all templates or a subset are returned are unaddressed, but for a parameterless read-only tool this is close to sufficient.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering arguments are needed because the enabled-only scope is fixed.

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 uses a specific verb (implicitly lists) and resource (the workspace's text templates), and scopes it to templates that are 'switched on'. It also enumerates the returned fields (id, rendered words, segments), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling list_* tools, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the closing sentence about preview_batch sending one template or two as an A/B hints that this tool is the lookup step before building a batch. There is no explicit 'use this when' or 'do not use for X' guidance, and no exclusions relative to siblings.

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