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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds context about the product and a domain disclaimer ('not a medical, financial, or treatment service'), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like response details or rate limits. With annotations covering the core behavior, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description is three sentences and slightly verbose. It begins with a product description before stating the tool's purpose in the second sentence, so it is not front-loaded. The disclaimer in the third sentence is somewhat tangential for a listing tool. Still, it is not excessively long, so it is acceptable but not ideal.

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?

The tool is simple (no parameters) and has an output schema plus comprehensive annotations. The description provides useful context about the overall product and the tool's role as the first step. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when and why to use it, though it could mention what the response contains, but the output schema covers that.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty (100% coverage). No parameter explanation is needed, and the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description does not add parameter-specific details because none exist.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Call this first to see the available sprint templates.' It identifies the resource (sprint templates) and the action (list/browse), matching the tool name. It also distinguishes from siblings like get_template_guide by positioning this as the initial step for viewing available templates.

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 provides explicit usage context by saying 'Call this first,' indicating this should be the initial call when working with sprint templates. However, it does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, stopping short of a full 5.

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