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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the shape of each returned entry, including the isAvailable applicability flag, which is behaviorally meaningful for deciding whether to proceed to apply.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the definition needed to interpret results and the workflow cue. The ECOMMERCE/FINTECH examples earn their place by making an abstract concept concrete, and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

With no parameters, no output schema, and a read-only annotation profile, the remaining burden is explaining what a domain template is and what a listing entry contains, and the description does both. An agent has everything needed to call it and to interpret the response before choosing preview or apply.

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 and the schema is an empty object, so per the baseline this sits at 4. The description's account of returned fields is a bonus rather than parameter explanation, and there are no parameters that could be underspecified.

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 all domain templates") and then defines the resource concretely as a starter pack of fact definitions and sample rules with named examples (ECOMMERCE checkout pricing, FINTECH transfer approval). It also enumerates what each entry reports (key, isAvailable, fact count, sample rule count), so it is unmistakable against siblings like lexq_domain_templates_apply or lexq_domain_templates_preview.

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?

Explicitly positions the tool in the workflow: "Call this before preview or apply to see which templates exist," naming both downstream siblings and the ordering that selects them. It does not state any when-not condition or what to do if isAvailable is false, which keeps it short of a 5.

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