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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, the description usefully discloses that only the vendor-default template page is returned, that paging controls are deliberately withheld, and names the underlying endpoint. However it is silent on whether the name_contains and component_name_contains filters are honored, which is the main behavioral unknown an agent would hit.

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 tight sentences with the core purpose and return shape front-loaded, followed by the pagination caveat and endpoint reference. The 'Sorry: GET ...' endpoint citation is mildly odd framing but still informative and short.

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, the description compensates by enumerating returned fields and flagging the missing paging contract. Filter behavior remains unexplained, which is the one gap for a 3-parameter list tool.

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 the baseline is 3; the description adds no filter semantics beyond the schema. It does add return-field semantics (id, name, content, optional component_id), which the schema cannot express since there is no output schema.

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 the page's update templates') and clarifies the domain entity as 'reusable text for one notice update', plus enumerates the returned fields. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the near-identical sibling sorryapp_list_notice_templates, so an agent must infer the difference.

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 parenthetical 'reusable text for one notice update' implies this feeds sorryapp_create_notice_update / edit_notice_update, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance and no instruction on how to choose it over sorryapp_list_notice_templates.

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