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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Templates are read only here' reinforces rather than carries the burden. It adds real value by disclosing the auth requirement ('Needs the user's Cotlet API key with access to this app'), which annotations do not cover. Return format and pagination remain undescribed, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and next-step routing, then supporting detail. Slightly redundant in restating the type list already present in the enum, but no wasted framing or padding.

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 zero-required-param list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, resource types, the follow-on action, and auth needs. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing, though return shape is left unspecified.

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% and the enum already documents each type, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the type list (proposals, contracts, questionnaires, sub-agreements, lead capture forms) without adding syntax or default behavior beyond what the enum provides, matching the baseline for fully covered params.

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 and resource ('Your form templates by type'), enumerates the resource kinds, and names the downstream sibling (apply_form_template) it feeds. An agent can distinguish it from other Dubsado list tools without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context ('to pick one to apply to a project') and routes to the next tool by naming apply_form_template and the template_id it consumes. No explicit when-not or alternatives, but the usage path is unambiguous.

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