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

Annotations already mark the call read-only and idempotent; the description adds the required templates:manage scope, the exact OpenAPI operationId and GET path, and a warning about PassFast HTTP API/billing/rate limits plus not inventing other paths. This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core behavior comes first, followed by scope and API mapping. The 'Do not invent other paths' line is slightly imperative but earns its place by preventing hallucinated endpoints.

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 list operation with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers scope, filtering, authentication scope, endpoint mapping, and rate-limit behavior. It does not enumerate response fields, but the domain term 'templates' and the absence of nested objects make this acceptable.

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 schema already documents archived and x_app_id. The description adds default/archived behavior, but this largely mirrors the schema and provides no additional detail on x_app_id or format beyond what is already present.

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 and resource ('List templates') and immediately clarifies scope: it returns all templates for the current app, with a default non-archived filter and an archived toggle. This clearly distinguishes it from singular getTemplate and other list 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?

The description gives clear usage context: list all templates for the current app, with archived=true as the only filter variant. It does not explicitly say when to prefer getTemplate or other siblings, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

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