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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the description is consistent with it. The description adds a small behavioral detail about cursor-based pagination, but it does not clarify what 'filter by cursor' means behaviorally or what the response contains. This is adequate but not rich.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence is somewhat redundant with the schema but earns some credit by indicating optionality and pagination. No unnecessary words are present.

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 simple read-only list operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks pagination semantics, response expectations, and any differentiation from closely related notification list tools, leaving the agent with an incomplete picture.

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%, with the cursor parameter already described as 'Pagination cursor.' The description's 'Optionally filter by cursor' adds no meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List notification templates.' This distinguishes it from creation and mutation tools in the sibling list. However, the tool name says 'notifications' while the description says 'templates,' and it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similar siblings like list_notification_versions or list_notification_checks.

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?

No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With over 100 siblings, including other list_* tools, the description leaves the agent to infer usage context. The only usage hint is the generic 'Optionally filter by cursor,' which is not enough to route selection.

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