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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the presentation rule (hide IDs/metadata from the user) and the critical pagination behavior (short pages are not necessarily the last; follow nextOffset until null). This is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the core action and presentation rule, the second gives the pagination rule, and the third explains the non-obvious short-page behavior. The most important operational guidance is front-loaded.

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 read-only list tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what to list, how to present it, and how to paginate. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe the response shape, but since there is no output schema and the tool is simple, the description is nearly complete.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (limit and offset) with descriptions including defaults and the nextOffset instruction. The description reinforces the pagination semantics but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('List all available signing templates') and adds a clear presentation directive (show only names, hide IDs/metadata). It is easily distinguished from siblings like list_documents or list_drafts by the resource named in the first sentence.

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 context for when to use the tool: when listing all available signing templates. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling list makes the resource distinction clear, and the pagination guidance is strong. A small deduction for not explicitly saying 'use get_template for a single template's details'.

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