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

The readOnlyHint=true annotation already establishes this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description's burden is lower. It adds only minor context ('saved', optional type filter, endpoint mapping) and says nothing about pagination, ordering, or what an empty result means.

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 tightly written sentence that front-loads the core action and appends the endpoint reference without padding. Nothing is wasted, though the endpoint mention is marginally redundant with the tool's purpose.

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 zero-required-parameter, read-only list tool with a fully described schema and safety annotations, the description covers what an agent needs to select and call it. Return-value behavior is unexplained, but no output schema exists and a plain list tool rarely requires it.

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 single 'type' parameter with its MESSAGING/EMAIL enum is fully documented in the schema itself. The description merely restates that filtering is optional ('optionally only the messaging or email ones'), adding no semantics beyond the 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 saved quick replies') and clarifies with a synonym ('canned responses') plus the underlying endpoint (GET /quick_replies). It is unambiguous, though it does not need to differentiate from siblings since no other quick-reply tool exists in the set.

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 phrase 'useful for drafting consistent answers' gives a hint of when the tool is applicable, but there are no explicit when-not conditions and no named alternatives among the sibling tools. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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