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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description does not contradict them. It adds value beyond the annotations by disclosing the auth requirement (Authorization: Bearer zs_...) and specifying the returned fields, giving the agent useful behavioral context for a safe read operation.

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 with zero waste: purpose first, then return fields, downstream usage, and auth requirement. Every clause earns its place and the critical scoping constraint is front-loaded.

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 an output schema present and zero parameters, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: purpose, scope, return content, downstream use, and auth. There are no gaps for a straightforward read-only listing 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. There are no parameter semantics to document, and the description correctly avoids inventing any. The schema is empty and fully covered, so nothing is missing.

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) + resource (templates) + scope (caller's org), and names the returned fields (template_id, name, updated_at, role names). It clearly differentiates from siblings like create_template (creation vs. listing) and list_envelopes (templates vs. envelopes). The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly frames the use case: the output is 'enough to pick a template for add_document_to_draft(template_id=...) or send_from_template,' telling the agent when this tool is the right choice. It does not enumerate explicit exclusions versus alternatives, but the downstream routing is clear and actionable.

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