locations_get_all_or_email_sms_templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the HTTP method—no mention of pagination behavior, response format, or the fact that the 'type' parameter filters results. The description's 'email/sms' wording also ignores the 'whatsapp' enum value, which is a minor inconsistency but not a contradiction of annotations.

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 fragment ('GET all or email/sms templates') that is extremely short but also under-specified. It lacks any structure to guide the agent—no front-loaded purpose, no mention of key parameters, and no sentence break. This is closer to a tautology than an informative description, though it does include a verb and resource.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, this description is wholly inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how pagination works, how to use the 'type' filter, or what 'deleted' does. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on this description alone, especially given the sibling tools with clearer semantics.

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 only 33% (only originId and locationId have descriptions). The description's phrase 'all or email/sms' hints that the 'type' parameter can filter results, but it doesn't name the parameter or explain the meaning of 'all' (likely omitting type). It provides no value for skip, limit, or deleted parameters, so it fails to compensate for the poor schema coverage.

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 verb ('GET') and a resource ('templates'), but the scope is ambiguous: 'all or email/sms' omits the 'whatsapp' type that exists in the schema, and it fails to mention the 'location' context implied by the tool name. It does not clearly differentiate from sibling tools like emails_fetch_template or locations_get_location_tags, leaving the agent to guess what this tool retrieves.

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?

There is zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of filters, pagination parameters (skip/limit), or the deleted flag. The description does not explain that this is for fetching messaging templates for a location, nor when someone would prefer this over emails_fetch_template or other template-related tools.

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