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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context by naming the underlying API call (GET /template), but says nothing about pagination behavior, default page size, or result scoping beyond the schema. Adequate but not rich.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no padding. The API endpoint mention is mildly redundant but still compact and informative.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and a safety annotation, this is nearly sufficient. However, it omits how results are paginated/delimited and does not differentiate the tool from its sibling list/get operations, leaving a real routing gap.

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 all four parameters (page, query, perPage, folderId) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning for any of them, so the baseline of 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?

States a clear verb+resource ('List reusable document templates') and adds a conceptual definition ('how you create a new document without uploading a PDF'). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling list/get tools like documenso_list_documents or documenso_get_template, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explains what a template is but never says when to call this tool versus documenso_list_documents, documenso_get_template, or documenso_create_document_from_template. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-routing guidance is given.

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