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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: it enumerates the returned fields (id, name, archived, anonymous) and names the upstream endpoint (GET /questionnaires). It stops short of pagination or result-size behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence delivers purpose, return fields, and downstream use, followed by a compact endpoint reference. No filler.

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?

With no output schema present, the description usefully names the relevant returned fields, which compensates well. It omits any note on pagination or whether archived templates are returned by default, a minor gap for a list endpoint.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantics to supplement and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description is needed or missing on the parameter side.

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 (List) and resource (intake questionnaire templates) and even enumerates the returned fields, which lets an agent confirm it's the template catalog rather than submissions. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearby intakeq_list_intakes sibling, so the template-vs-submission distinction must be inferred from the word 'templates'.

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 ids you need to send one' clearly signals the use context: call this before intakeq_send_questionnaire to obtain an id. No explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is given, but the routing intent is unambiguous.

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