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

Annotations already establish this is a safe read (readOnlyHint=true), and the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the response omits template bodies. It does not mention pagination or what happens when limit is unset, which is the remaining gap for a list tool.

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: what it returns, why you need it, and where to go for the body. No filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded before the disambiguation.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the exposed fields and the excluded body. It is nearly complete for a two-parameter list tool, only missing limit/default paging behavior.

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 50%: the channel enum is documented in the schema, but limit has no description anywhere. The description lists 'channels' as a returned field rather than explaining the channel filter or limit semantics, so it adds little meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Lists) and resource (workspace content templates) and enumerates what comes back: id, channels, format and variables. It also explicitly differentiates itself from get_template by noting the body is excluded, so an agent can choose between the two without opening either 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?

Explicitly names the consumers that need a templateId (send_email, send_message, create_campaign, automation message nodes) and warns not to invent one, which is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs. It also names the alternative (get_template) for retrieving the body.

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