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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: results are scoped to the active tenant, and the tool returns only template metadata, not the full source. The pointer to nevent_get_template implicitly discloses that this tool does not return the full source, which exceeds the annotation baseline.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: when to call, what it returns, how to use the result, and which sibling to call for full source. There is no fluff or redundancy, and the primary purpose is front-loaded.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description's list of returned fields (id, name, tags, MJML/HTML) is valuable and largely sufficient. It also explains the tool's role in the campaign-creation workflow with clear links to sibling tools. It does not mention pagination metadata or whether sortable timestamps are included in the response, but the schema's limit and sort parameters cover the mechanical aspects.

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 input schema describes all five parameters with full coverage, including defaults, enums, and semantics, so the baseline is 3. The description does not repeat or expand on parameter behavior such as tag filtering or content_nature. No additional semantic value is added beyond the 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?

The description states a specific action, 'discover available email templates before creating a campaign,' and enumerates the returned data (id, name, tags, MJML/HTML format). It clearly distinguishes from nevent_get_template by framing this as the list-level discovery tool and the sibling as the full-source inspector. The active-tenant scoping provides a precise resource boundary.

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?

It explicitly frames when to call the tool: before creating a campaign. It also gives an alternative path by instructing the agent to call nevent_get_template for full HTML/MJML source, and shows how the returned id feeds into nevent_create_campaign. This provides clear when-to-use and when-to-use-a-different-tool guidance.

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