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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool requires a prior login and guarantees that its returned slugs are the only accepted values for cert_template. It does not describe failure behavior or output format, but the safety profile is already covered.

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, no filler. The prerequisite is front-loaded, the action is stated directly, and the final sentence adds a high-value constraint about slug validity. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple read-only listing tool with one optional parameter, this is complete: it states the precondition, the purpose, and the meaning of the return values. The lack of an output schema is mitigated because the description already tells the agent that the result is the set of cert_template-accepted slugs.

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 optional account_link_id parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description does not need to add parameter detail and does not meaningfully expand on it beyond tying it to the login prerequisite.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('certificate templates that can be applied for'), and adds a critical scoping detail: the returned slugs are exactly the values accepted by cert_template, and nothing else. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling apply/list/download certificate tools.

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?

It gives an explicit prerequisite: a prior hometax__session__login call with the same account_link_id. It also implicitly routes the agent to use these slugs with cert_template, but it does not explicitly name the alternative tool or state when not to use this one.

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