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

Annotations already communicate that the operation is read-only and non-destructive. The description adds only the org scoping, but does not describe return format, pagination, ordering, or any other behavioral detail beyond what annotations already convey.

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 a single short sentence with no filler. The verb and object are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable and appropriate for a zero-parameter read-only tool.

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, read-only list operation, the description is essentially complete: it identifies the resource and scope. The lack of an output schema makes return details implicit, but the simple tool contract does not demand deeper context.

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, so there is no parameter information for the description to compensate for. The schema is fully sufficient at 100% coverage, and the no-parameter baseline is 4.

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 object: 'List' plus 'templates,' and scopes them to 'the org's.' This makes the core purpose clear. Resource-name separation from sibling list tools is implied but not explicitly stated, so it stops short of 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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus list_clients or list_projects. There are no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives mentioned, so an agent must infer all usage context from the tool name and one-line description.

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