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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered and the description's "[read-only]" prefix is largely redundant. The useful additions are that it wraps GET /api/v2/text-templates and that results are scoped per brand. Nothing is said about pagination or result size, and the brand-pinning 403 case is left to the schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its contents before the usage hint; the API-endpoint aside is a minor but useful parenthetical. No 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 read-only, zero-required-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what a template contains and when to reach for one. The undocumented includeArchived parameter is the only real hole.

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 coverage is 50%: brandId is documented thoroughly in the schema (including the 403 behavior for brand-bound keys), while includeArchived has no description anywhere. The description's phrase "per brand" only faintly gestures at brandId and adds nothing about includeArchived, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 resource (reusable text shapes/text templates) and enumerates its contents (sections, length targets, hook patterns, CTA slots, guardrails), which clearly distinguishes this list tool from get_text_template, create_text_template and the other template siblings. The verb is implied by the name/title rather than stated outright, so it is clear but not maximally sharp.

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?

"Use one to shape a draft's text before create_content" gives concrete downstream context and names the sibling that consumes the output. It lacks any when-not guidance (e.g. when to call get_text_template for a single item instead), so it stops short of full routing.

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