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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: the exact HTTP path (GET /manage-templates), the scope requirement, and the note about identical billing/rate limits. This goes 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 concise and well-structured, front-loading the core action and then providing essential scope and API mapping details. It avoids redundancy, though a couple of phrases (e.g., 'Same PassFast HTTP API') could be trimmed, but overall it is efficient.

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 tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: scope, path, default behavior, and rate-limit note. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly without additional clarification.

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 100% and the schema descriptions fully explain both parameters. The description repeats the archived behavior but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Since the schema carries the burden, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'templates', and specifies the scope ('current app'). It distinguishes from siblings by explaining the default vs. archived filter and mentions the OpenAPI operationId and path, which differentiates it from 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 explains the default behavior and how to get archived templates via the archived parameter. It also mentions the required scope ('templates:manage'). While it does not explicitly name alternatives, the distinction from getTemplate is implied and the purpose clarity covers the main usage context.

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