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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds behavioral context by stating the operation is free and that it returns current values of editable fields, which provides useful information beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is two sentences long and every word adds value. The first sentence states the function, and the second provides precise usage guidance without any redundancy or filler.

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 parameter and no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what is returned (current values of editable text fields), when to use it, and how it relates to the generate tool. No further information is needed for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 input schema has full coverage (100%) for the single parameter template_id, with a description already stating 'The template ID to get text fields for.' The tool description does not add further semantic detail about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies since the schema handles the meaning adequately.

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 clearly states the tool lists a template's editable text fields (headline, subhead, CTA, etc.) with current values. The verb 'list' and specific resource 'template text fields' make the purpose unambiguous, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like generate by explicitly positioning itself as a pre-generation step.

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 description explicitly says to use it right after a template is chosen and BEFORE generate when precise field filling is desired instead of a freeform description. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and contrasts with the alternative, making the usage context unmistakable.

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