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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read. The description adds context that the list includes both Bird built-ins and the user's own templates, and references the API endpoint. This enriches understanding beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 a single sentence plus an API endpoint reference, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It contains no redundant information and is appropriately compact.

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 with zero required parameters and full schema coverage, the description is sufficient. The lack of an output schema is acceptable because list tools are generally understood to return arrays of the resource, and the readOnlyHint annotation covers safety.

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 input schema provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (scope, category, language), with coverage at 100%. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers, so baseline 3 applies.

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 tool lists SMS templates available to the workspace, using the verb 'List' and specifying the resource ('SMS templates'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like bird_list_whatsapp_templates by explicitly naming the SMS channel and including the API endpoint.

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 provides clear context that this tool lists SMS templates with workspace scope, but does not explicitly mention when to use this over related tools like bird_list_sms_messages or bird_list_whatsapp_templates. Since the resource is unambiguous, it earns a 4 for clear context without exclusions.

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