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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context by enumerating what each returned item contains (name, record-page vs tile, where it is in use), though it says nothing about pagination or ordering.

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, front-loaded with the resource and its definition, followed by the actionable call-before guidance. Slightly dense with em-dashes and guillemets, but no sentence is wasted.

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 no output schema present, the description compensates by describing the return fields (name, layout type, current usage) and the filtering scope, so an agent knows both what it gets and why it would call it.

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 both parameters carry their own descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'a project or one table' mirrors the app_id/entity_id distinction without adding format or syntax detail, matching the baseline 3.

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 the specific resource (record templates), the scope (a project or one table), and even defines what a template is ('the layouts ONE record is shown or printed with'). This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like list_templates and create_record_template.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative calls (update_record_template / delete_record_template) and the condition that selects this tool — retrieving the template_id first — plus a second use case (answering which layouts a table has). Nothing is left to inference.

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