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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals a safe read operation; the description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying 'newest first' ordering, the exact fields returned, and the relationship to generated templates. No safety or authorization concerns are omitted that would materially affect a read-only list call.

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 three short sentences with no filler. The core purpose and output are front-loaded, followed by the filter behavior and a practical usage note. Every sentence contributes meaningful information.

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?

For a low-complexity read-only list with one optional filter and no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies the output fields, ordering, filter semantics, and downstream usage. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its result.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry the explanatory burden for the kind parameter, and it does: 'kind narrows it to one kind' clarifies that it is an optional filter. The enum values are already in the schema, so the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than repeating the value list.

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 ('List') and clearly identifies the resource: templates the user has saved from earlier drafts. It also enumerates the returned fields and ordering, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like list_artifacts or save_as_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 clear usage context: it explains that kind narrows results to one kind and that a saved_template_id can be passed to a generator to reuse the template. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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