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

The annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds useful context about what an api template is, which helps the agent understand the resource being listed. No side effects are mentioned, but the annotations cover that.

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 brief and to the point, with two sentences. It front-loads the primary action and scope, then adds a helpful definition. No unnecessary words.

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 simple list operation, the description provides enough context: what the resource is and the tenant scope. An output schema is present, so return structure is defined elsewhere. It doesn't mention pagination default or ordering, but that is not essential.

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 parameter descriptions in the schema are clear and cover all three parameters: page_size, page_token, and slug_prefix. The tool description doesn't add further parameter detail, but the schema descriptions are sufficient. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description meets the baseline.

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 clearly states the action (List), the resource (api templates), and the scope (belonging to the authenticated tenant). It also defines what an api template is, removing ambiguity. The verb and resource are specific enough to distinguish from other list tools.

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?

The description does not explicitly mention alternative tools or conditions for when to use this tool versus others, such as get_api_template or list_dynamic_endpoints. It lacks guidance on trade-offs or use cases.

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