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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds useful value by enumerating the return fields and the {{placeholders}} metadata in the absence of an output schema, but says nothing about result size, ordering, or how 'team shared' templates are distinguished.

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 compact sentences with zero waste; the resource and scope are front-loaded and the actionable next step comes second. Nothing is redundant against name, schema, or annotations.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key return fields and the follow-up workflow, which is close to complete. The one material omission is any explanation of the search parameter, which an agent would otherwise have to guess at.

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?

There is one parameter, 'search', and schema description coverage is 0% - the schema offers only a bare string type with no explanation. The description never mentions the search parameter at all, so it does not compensate for the gap or clarify what search matches against (name, subject, body?).

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?

Names the specific resource (email templates) and its scope - the caller's saved templates plus the team's shared ones - and lists the returned fields (id, name, subject, placeholders). This clearly separates it from sibling template listers such as list_document_templates and list_proposal_templates.

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?

It states the downstream workflow - take a template and use it with draft_email (template + template_vars) - which implies why you'd call it. However it gives no explicit when-to-use-this vs. the many other list_* siblings, and the selection guidance is only implicit through the draft_email reference.

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