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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds two valuable facts: results are metadata-only without example HTML, and template descriptions/design notes are untrusted owner-authored data (a prompt-injection warning). Pagination behavior for the cursor is not disclosed, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the two caveats that matter. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 does useful work by summarizing the return shape (metadata, no example HTML), and it flags the untrusted-data risk. However, for a 3-parameter list tool it leaves pagination (cursor/limit) entirely unaddressed, which is a real gap.

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 0% for all three parameters. The description only gestures at the query parameter ('by name or description') and says nothing about limit or cursor, so pagination semantics remain completely 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 specific verb and resource ('Find the owner's saved presentation templates'), which clearly separates it from single-item siblings like get_template and mutating siblings like save_template. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the list/search framing is unambiguous.

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 indicates the tool can filter by name or description, implying a search/list use case, but never states when to prefer it over get_template, preview_template, or list_pages. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.

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