hires_list_template_placeholders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination and the listing behavior, but does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or describe any potential side effects, authentication requirements, or constraints like company_id handling. The verb 'List' implies read-only, but more context could be added.

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 core purpose, and every sentence provides useful information. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

The description is reasonably complete for a list tool: it states what is listed (placeholders), the pagination aspect, and provides a workflow connection to the prepare tool. Since there is no output schema, it could mention the structure of the returned placeholders, but that is not critical for a list operation. The lack of mention of 'is_notification' or company_id is mitigated by the schema.

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?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds a bit of meaning by explaining 'type' as category and 'q' as label search, but this largely repeats the schema. It does not add value for parameters like page, size, or is_notification.

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 'available placeholders for email templates', and immediately distinguishes this tool from siblings by mentioning pagination and the related tool 'hires_prepare_template_placeholders'. It is specific and not a tautology.

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 provides usage guidance by explaining how to use 'type' and 'q' parameters, and explicitly references a sibling tool for the next step (getting an HTML tag). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the sequential workflow helps differentiate it from alternatives.

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