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

readOnlyHint=true already declares this a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description usefully clarifies that results are templates rather than executed/signed agreements, but it says nothing about pagination behavior, default ordering, or result shape.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The endpoint string adds minimal value for an agent but is compact and harmless.

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 and only a readOnly annotation, the description is barely sufficient: it never mentions that results are paginated (page_size/page_token) or what an agent should do with the returned nextPageToken. Adequate to call, incomplete for using the result well.

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 are already documented in the schema, including token chaining and business filtering. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List agreement templates') and disambiguates the resource as 'contracts and waivers,' which an agent couldn't infer from the name alone. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from the many sibling list_* tools, but the resource is distinct enough to select correctly.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no prerequisites stated, and no note that company_id comes from moego_list_companies (that detail lives only in the schema). The only usage hint is the implied 'list templates' semantics.

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