List Templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by defining output presentation behavior ('Don't read ids or timestamps back to the user unless they ask'), which is genuinely useful and not captured in any structured field.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, each carrying distinct information. 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?

For a no-required-param list tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, purpose, and output handling adequately; pagination and search are handled by the schema. It stops short of noting the related gallery-template tools, which would round it out.

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%, so all four params (after, limit, before, search) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 organization's own email templates') and the 'own' qualifier usefully distinguishes it from the gallery-template siblings. It doesn't name an alternative sibling by name, so it's clear but not maximally differentiating.

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 mention that 'an email campaign uses one through its template_id' implies why you'd call this (to obtain a template_id), but there's no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no pointer to list-gallery-templates for non-org templates. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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