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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the useful behavioral note that the returned list contains policies but not raw prompts, which is beyond the annotations. It does not disclose pagination, return shape, or ordering, but for a read-only list this is a moderate gap.

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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and includes a meaningful exclusion. Every word earns its place.

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 one-optional-parameter list tool with readOnly annotations, the description covers the basic purpose and a key exclusion. But there is no output schema, so the agent would benefit from knowing what fields the returned policies contain and whether the optional request_id changes the response. It is adequate but not complete.

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?

There is one optional request_id parameter and the schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not mention request_id at all, leaving the agent to guess what it filters or selects. The schema provides only the name, type, and minLength, which is not enough to use the parameter correctly.

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 states a clear action ('List') and resource ('candidate email template policies'), and adds a distinguishing caveat ('without raw prompts') that separates it from tools like email_templates_read or preview. However, it doesn't name a sibling explicitly, and 'candidate' could be read as either candidate-related or pending, so it is clear but not maximally precise.

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 phrase 'without raw prompts' implicitly tells the agent that raw prompt content is not included, which suggests using read/preview tools when that content is needed. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative, so the guidance is only implied.

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