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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the scope 'in an org' and the output fields, but does not provide additional behavioral context such as pagination, authorization requirements, or rate limits. It does not contradict annotations.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and the output fields; the second points to a more specific sibling tool for deep detail. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 read-only listing tool with a detailed output schema and strong annotations, the description is complete. It communicates the scope (org), the output fields, and directs users to get_installed_template for per-release details. No significant gaps remain.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions (org pattern, limit min/max), so the description's reference to 'org' adds little beyond the schema. The mention of returned fields is about output, not parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already provides thorough parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the tool 'List the template releases installed in an org' and enumerates the returned fields (name, template, version, GVC, revision). It uses a specific verb ('List') with a resource ('template releases') and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_installed_template, making the purpose 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?

The description provides an explicit alternative: 'Use get_installed_template for the resources and status of a specific release.' This tells the agent when not to use this tool and when to choose a sibling instead, satisfying the criteria for when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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