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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description stays consistent by framing operations as discover/list/inspect. It adds a meaningful limitation: get only works where the compatibility endpoint is supported, and it discloses what list returns so callers can anticipate results. It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, but the read-only safety profile is already handled by annotations.

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 purpose and then delivering mode details, sibling guidance, and a scope boundary. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no repetition of annotation or schema content.

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 two-mode, read-only discovery tool without an output schema, the description covers purpose, the list/get distinction, list return fields, a compatibility caveat, and a related sibling. The schema fills in the remaining defaults and parameter details, so nothing critical appears missing.

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 the schema already documents action, template_id, account_id, search, page, and per_page. The tool-level description maps actions to their outputs but does not add parameter-level syntax, defaults, or constraints beyond what the schema provides. This matches the baseline for a fully covered schema.

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 action and resource: discovering saved templates before requesting signatures. It clearly distinguishes the two modes (list vs get) and lists what each returns, including roles, pages, field_id, and placement labels. It also separates itself from template authoring, making its purpose unmistakable among sibling tools.

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?

Anchors usage to a clear workflow phase ('before requesting signatures') and explicitly points to check_fields as the sibling for matching field names. It also draws an out-of-scope boundary with 'Template authoring stays in Assinafy.' It could be slightly more explicit about when to choose get over list, but the mode descriptions imply the choice.

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