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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the response surfaces signer roles, pages, and field placements, which is useful output context, but it says nothing about pagination or result limits.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, and the second sentence sets a useful expectation about authoring. No filler.

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 partially fills the gap by enumerating returned fields. The main omission is any mention of pagination despite page and per_page parameters, which an agent would need when results are large.

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 page, search, per_page, and account_id are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 saved templates) and goes further by naming what the results contain: signer roles, pages, and field placements with field_id. This distinguishes it from get_template and the create_* siblings without naming them explicitly.

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?

'Template authoring is done in Assinafy' implicitly tells the agent this tool is read-only and cannot create templates, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus get_template or create_document_from_template, and no mention of pagination behavior.

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