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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it includes drafts, includes admin-removed listings with the removal reason, and carries linking ids for downstream mutation tools. This is meaningful extra information.

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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds only the high-value details about returned identifiers and included states.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing tool with an output schema and readOnlyHint annotation, the description is complete. It explains scope, included items, special content (taken-down reason), and how the results connect to sibling tools.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description carries no parameter-documentation burden. The baseline of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'List the templates the signed-in user has published.' It adds precise scoping (drafts, admin-taken-down listings with reasons) that distinguishes it from public browsing tools like browse_templates and from get_template.

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 clearly implies the tool is for the signed-in user's own published templates and explains that it returns the listing ids needed for update_listing and unpublish_listing. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name browse_templates as the alternative for public templates.

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