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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope. The description goes beyond that by disclosing an important result-scope behavior: shipped platform defaults are excluded and apply implicitly when no template matches. This adds real value, though pagination/limit behavior is not addressed.

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 tight sentences, no filler, and the most valuable scoping fact (defaults are excluded) is placed second where it reads as a caveat to the primary statement.

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 a rich annotation set and no output schema, the description covers the resource, the returned content (rendered Mustache source), and the fallback behavior. The remaining gap is the filtering/pagination surface (limit, channel_type), which an agent would have to infer.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It implies the project scope ('a project's notification templates') but says nothing about the limit control or the channel_type enum filter, leaving two of three parameters unexplained anywhere.

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 a project's notification templates') and adds the distinguishing content detail that results include the Mustache source. This separates it cleanly from sibling list_notification_channels and the delete/set template tools.

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?

Usage is implicit: the tool is clearly a read operation over a project's templates, and the note about platform defaults hints at when results may be empty. However, it never says when to prefer this over list_notification_channels or how it pairs with set_notification_template, and no prerequisites are stated.

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