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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: what a domain template contains (facts + sample rules), the domain examples, and the shape of each entry (key, isAvailable, fact/rule counts). It does not mention pagination or ordering, keeping it short of a 5 for a list endpoint with no output schema.

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, zero waste: purpose first, domain concept second, return fields and workflow placement last. Every sentence earns its place.

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 output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the per-entry fields. It is nearly complete, though ordering/pagination behavior and whether the list can be empty are left unstated.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document; the schema is trivially complete. Baseline for a no-parameter tool, with no misleading param claims.

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 immediately defines the domain-specific concept, distinguishing it from the apply/preview siblings. An agent can identify this as the discovery step without opening the schema.

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 instructs 'Call this before preview or apply to see which templates exist,' naming the downstream alternatives (lexq_domain_templates_preview / _apply) and the condition that selects this tool. Nothing is left to inference.

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