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. The description adds useful domain context (the published-version distinction and that published templates can price jobs), but says nothing about pagination, workspace scoping, or what an empty result means.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with the resource stated first and the return fields appended. Every clause earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully lists the fields returned (id, name, trade, published version), which is the main thing an agent needs for a no-arg list tool. It is nearly complete, missing only result volume or ordering behavior.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema imposes no burden and the baseline for a parameter-free tool applies. The description instead documents the shape of the returned records, which is a reasonable substitute for parameter guidance here.

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 specific verb and resource ('list_estimate_templates' → the workspace's estimate templates) and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, trade, published version). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling list_* tools by resource name, but it never names an alternative to avoid confusion with list_proposal_templates or generate_estimate.

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 parenthetical that 'published ones can price a job from measurements' gestures at why the tool matters, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to siblings like generate_estimate or list_proposal_templates. An agent must infer the calling context on its own.

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