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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the workflow intent (collecting IDs) but says nothing about pagination behavior or result size, which matters given page/limit parameters.

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, zero filler, and the identifying scope precedes the workflow tip. Nothing to trim.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema the description is serviceable, but 'the active setup' is left undefined and the pagination parameters are entirely unexplained in both description and schema. An agent can call it, but with some guesswork.

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 coverage is 50%: 'type' and 'search' are described in the schema, while 'page' and 'limit' are only typed/defaulted. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it neither compensates for the gap nor improves on the documented half. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List') and resource ('LinkedNav prompt templates') scoped to 'the active setup', which is enough to separate it from the singular get_prompt and the create/update/delete prompt siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it differs from, so it lands just under a 5.

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?

Gives concrete workflow guidance: fetch before editing so you have prompt IDs. That is real when-to-use context. It does not state when NOT to use it or point at get_prompt for fetching a single template, so no exclusions.

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