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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the UI ordering, the exact fields returned, the variable syntax inside template text, and the fact that filtering can target title or body.

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 a compact block of sentences with the core purpose and ordering front-loaded, and every clause carries information about scope, ordering, return fields, or filtering. It is slightly dense but not redundant.

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 listing tool with no output schema, the description does useful work by enumerating returned fields and explaining variable syntax and ordering. Pagination behavior is covered by the input schema, so the only minor gap is not naming sibling alternatives or explaining cursor continuation in prose.

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 100%, so limit, query, cursor, and category are already documented in the schema. The description only restates that filtering works by word or category, adding no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a precise verb and resource: it lists message templates for the organization. It also specifies scope, ordering (pinned then most used), and returned fields, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools like ficiel_resolve_template or ficiel_save_template without opening schemas.

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 implies usage for browsing or searching templates and notes it is read-only, which helps an agent avoid mistaking it for a mutation. However, it never explicitly names alternatives such as ficiel_resolve_template or ficiel_save_template, nor states when this tool should be preferred over them.

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