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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful scope context — that templates span both private and organization-wide — plus pagination behavior, but says nothing about ordering, auth, or rate limits.

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 lines, front-loaded with the resource and its scope, ending with the endpoint. Every clause carries information; it is compact without being cryptic, though the telegraphic style borders on under-explanation.

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 usefully enumerates returned fields and the paging contract, which an agent needs to consume results. With only two optional query params and full read-only annotations, the remaining gaps (ordering, filtering) are minor.

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%, and the schema itself documents page_size limits and the pagination_token cursor thoroughly. The description's mention of paging with hasMore/paginationToken mirrors rather than extends that documentation, so the 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?

The description states the resource precisely — saved message templates, private and organization-wide — and enumerates the returned fields (title, text, internal/shared flags). It is clear about what the tool returns, though it offers no explicit differentiation from siblings beyond the resource name.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only procedural guidance is internal paging mechanics (hasMore/paginationToken), which is about how to iterate results rather than when to select this tool.

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