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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world scope, so the safety bar is low. The description adds real value beyond that: permission-scoped visibility (only templates you can plan) and pagination semantics (`starting_after` = last returned `id`, paging continues while `has_more`). It doesn't mention rate limits or default page size, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core list scope, then a compact per-parameter block — no filler sentences. The phrasing of 'Pass one's qzf_… handle' is slightly awkward and the handle prefix requires inference, but the structure is otherwise tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary; the description instead covers the only ambiguity that matters — how to page (`starting_after`/`has_more`) — plus scope and downstream use. For a zero-required-parameter read tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning — and it does: `hooper_only` is defined by the metric it feeds, `limit` is capped at 100, and `starting_after` takes the last returned `id` with `has_more` as the continuation signal. Every one of the three parameters gains meaning not present in the schema.

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+resource (list questionnaire templates) and immediately bounds the scope: your own, your teams', and Nolio's Hooper questionnaire. It also distinguishes the tool's role from siblings by naming create_planned_event as the consumer of its output, which no other list_* sibling does.

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?

Tells the agent exactly what to do with a result — pass the qzf_… handle as `quiz_template` to create_planned_event — and explains when to narrow with `hooper_only` (Hooper metric feeds). No competing tool lists quiz templates, so no exclusion clause is needed; the downstream routing is the guidance that matters.

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