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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds a filtering detail and redundantly restates that the server marks it read-only, but offers no additional behavioral context like rate limits or return format. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and then the optional filter. The additional note about read-only runs straight away is somewhat redundant but doesn't detract significantly from conciseness.

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?

Given a simple list tool with annotations covering safety and a fully described schema, the description provides enough to invoke it correctly. However, it omits potential details like output format or pagination behavior, which could be helpful for a complete picture.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description mentions 'template type' filtering, which maps to one parameter, but adds no syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('saved Elementor templates from the template library') with clear scope. It does not, however, differentiate this tool from similar listing tools like royal-mcp__elementor_list_local_templates or emcp-tools-list-pages, which could confuse an agent choosing between them.

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?

It implies usage by mentioning optional filtering by template type, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. The agent must infer the context from the name and description alone.

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