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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the key behavioral facts: this is a catalog lookup, the in-person templates require lat/lng coordinates, and remote templates work for anyone anywhere with optional country scoping. It does not state the return format beyond listing names, but for a static enumeration that is a minor gap.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then a grouped enumeration by category, then the routing instruction. Every clause carries usable information with zero 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?

For a zero-parameter, side-effect-free listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what is listed, the exact values, their constraints, and the sequencing relative to quest creation.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed to retrieve the full catalog.

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 the quest types") and immediately equates templates with quest types, then enumerates the exact values returned. This distinguishes it cleanly from sibling list_quests, which lists actual quests rather than 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?

"Call this first to pick the right template" gives explicit ordering guidance and implies it precedes create_quest. It also gives selection criteria (in-person vs remote, country limiting). It stops short of naming create_quest as the follow-up tool or stating when the tool is unnecessary.

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