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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful detail that it returns both personal and shared templates with placeholder names, but says nothing about pagination, ownership filtering, or how search behaves.

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?

One compact sentence front-loading the resource and scope, followed by a short chaining hint. No filler, though the field enumeration is slightly dense.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields and the placeholder concept. For a simple read-only list tool, this is nearly complete, with the only gap being the undocumented search parameter.

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?

Only 1 parameter with 0% schema description coverage; the description never mentions the search parameter or its semantics. It does compensate somewhat by explaining the returned fields (id, name, subject, placeholders), but the input side is undocumented.

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?

States a clear verb+resource: lists saved and shared email templates, and enumerates the returned fields. This distinguishes it from sibling list_* tools by scoping it to email templates, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling it differs from.

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?

Explicitly names the downstream tool (draft_email) and the inputs it consumes (template + template_vars), which is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs to chain these calls.

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