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 agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds that it lists approval statuses (PENDING/APPROVED/REJECTED) and implies it reflects Meta's status. This is helpful but not deep behavioral context (e.g., no mention of caching or real-time data). With strong annotations, a 3 is appropriate.

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. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides usage guidance. There is no unnecessary information, and key points are front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool is a simple list with one optional parameter and an output schema exists, the description is largely complete. It names the resource, key return data, and a use case. Minor omissions like default sorting or company scope are acceptable for this simplicity and context from the tool's name. A 4 reflects minimal gaps.

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 has only one parameter (limit) with complete description: 'Max templates to return (default 20)'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning about this parameter; it relies entirely on the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline score is 3.

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 lists WhatsApp message templates with their Meta approval status. It specifies the resource (templates) and the key data returned (approval status). The additional sentence about checking before campaign reference adds context, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from other list 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?

The description explicitly tells when to use the tool: 'Check this to see which templates are approved before referencing one in a campaign.' This provides a clear use case. However, it does not mention alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, though the unique resource makes differentiation straightforward.

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