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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the templates are 'stock' (a built-in catalog), and says nothing about result size, pagination or ordering; with annotations carrying the load, this is adequate but thin.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the filter list. It is appropriately sized, though extremely terse for a tool with no other documentation.

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?

The tool is simple (3 optional params, no nested objects), but with no output schema the description gives no sense of what a returned template looks like or how many come back. What is needed to invoke it is present; what is needed to use the results is not.

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 description coverage is 100% and each parameter already documents itself with examples, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description merely restates the three filter names and adds no syntax, combination or default semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('List stock templates'), and the word 'stock' scopes it to the built-in catalog rather than the user's own templates. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like pull_template or select_template, but the read-only listing intent is unambiguous.

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?

'Filter by category, tag or q' describes available filters rather than when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no guidance on when to reach for list_templates instead of select_template or pull_template, nor any note that filtering is optional.

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