proposals_list_documents_contracts_templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is covered. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or response characteristics. It does not contradict annotations, but it also contributes nothing beyond what is already structured.

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 extremely short ('List templates'), which is not conciseness but under-specification. It lacks critical details that an agent needs, making it too terse to be useful. A concise description would be efficient while still conveying scope and usage.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what the response looks like, when to use parameters like 'type' or 'isPublicDocument', or how the tool fits into the overall workflow. The agent has to rely entirely on schema names and sibling hints, which is insufficient.

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 100% (all 9 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter explanation or enrich the schema's minimal descriptions (e.g., 'Skip', 'Limit', 'Template Name'). It fails to provide additional meaning beyond the schema, so it stays at baseline.

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 'List templates' is a generic, bare statement that barely goes beyond the tool name. It identifies a verb and a resource but does not specify what kind of templates (e.g., proposal, estimate, content library) or how it differs from the sibling 'proposals_list_documents_contracts'. The purpose is vague and offers no differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like proposals_list_documents_contracts or proposals_send_documents_contracts_template. No context is provided about filtering, scope, or prerequisites, leaving the agent to guess.

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