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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces safety by using 'List.' Beyond that, it discloses return details ('name, category, latest version, and whether it creates its own GVC') and mentions filtering behavior. It does not add rate limits or pagination, but with strong annotations the extra behavior is sufficient.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the main action and resource appear in the first clause. Every sentence contributes—purpose, return summary, usage guidance, and next-step pointer. No filler or repetition.

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 simple list/filter tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, filter usage, and the follow-up tool. It also benefits from complete annotations and output schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description only says 'Pass `filter` to narrow,' which adds no meaning beyond the schema's description of the filter as an optional case-insensitive substring. No additional parameter context is provided.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'List the Control Plane Template Catalog.' It immediately distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_template and list_installed_templates by clarifying it's the catalog, not installed templates, and explicitly says 'Reach for this first whenever the user wants a database, cache, queue, or other common service.'

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Reach for this first...' and contrasts with hand-authoring resources. It also names the next step: 'Then call get_template for versions and the example values.yaml.' This gives clear when-to-use and a direct alternative.

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