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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds the endpoint and the nature of the resource but says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or what a next_url/previous_url contract implies beyond what the schema cursors already show.

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?

Two sentences, both front-loaded and free of padding; the resource definition comes first and the endpoint follows. Nothing here is wasted.

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 read-only listing tool this is mostly adequate, but with no output schema the description never indicates what the response contains (template objects, pagination envelope), leaving the agent to infer the return shape.

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% — all three cursor/limit parameters are documented in the schema itself with defaults and ranges. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (saved HTML templates), plus what they are used for (postcard/letter artwork). That distinguishes it from the other lob_list_* siblings by resource, though it doesn't explicitly call out the contrast.

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?

Usage is implied — retrieve templates to reference for postcard/letter artwork — but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer another tool over this one.

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