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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the meaningful scope constraint that only *published* templates are returned, but says nothing about result ordering, limits or truncation for a catalogue listing that could be large. Since an output schema exists, the field enumeration is largely redundant with structured data rather than added behavioral insight.

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, zero waste: the first front-loads what the tool returns and its scope ('published'), the second covers filtering. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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 3 optional parameters, no required inputs and a rich set of annotations, the definition is close to sufficient for correct invocation. The remaining gap is practical rather than conceptual: no hint about result volume, pagination or default ordering for a gallery listing. Return-value documentation is not needed since an output schema exists.

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 only 33%: `query` is documented in the schema, but `category` has no description and `language` only has an enum. The description's 'Filter by query words, category or language' names the filters but adds little meaning beyond the property names — it does not say whether filters combine with AND semantics, whether `category` is a slug or a free label, or how `language` interacts with the template's content language.

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') and resource ('published templates'), and enumerates what each entry contains (slug, name, tagline, categories, counts). It implicitly separates itself from template.install by noting these are templates 'a user can install', but it never names template.preview or template.install, so sibling routing relies on inference.

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 parenthetical '(the in-app template gallery)' and 'a user can install' imply the browsing/discovery context, and the filter sentence implies narrowing before installing. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus template.preview (inspect one template) or template.install (act on a specific template).

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