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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose that results include lines and options, and that templates are inputs for quotes.create rather than standalone objects. It says nothing about read-only safety, pagination, or the effect of archived templates on results.

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, purpose front-loaded, no filler. The trailing phrase 'changed as the worker says' is a little ambiguous and could mislead about whether this tool mutates anything, which costs a point.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover both the filter behavior and roughly what comes back. It handles the latter ('with their lines') and the workflow hand-off, but leaves the archived filter and result shape underspecified.

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 0%, so the description must explain both parameters and does not. It implies shop scoping via 'the shop's' but never clarifies shop_id's role, and include_archived is never mentioned at all, leaving the archived behavior of this listing completely undocumented.

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 verb and resource: list the shop's saved quote templates, including their lines. It also names the downstream action (pass lines/options to quotes.create), which separates it from templates_save and templates_archive. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those same-namespace siblings.

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?

Gives real workflow context that most definitions lack: the result of this listing is meant to be fed into quotes.create, modified per the worker. That tells an agent why and when to reach for this tool. It offers no exclusion criteria (e.g. archived vs active templates) or alternative listing paths.

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