list_criteria_templates

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's burden is lowered. The description adds value by explaining the 'Free tier' access constraint and detailing the return structure, which goes beyond the annotations. No contradictions or omissions noted.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose. The subsequent paragraphs for Args and Returns are well-structured, adding detail without redundancy. Every sentence contributes value, and the entire description fits in a few lines.

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 tool has one optional parameter and no required params, and the description covers the purpose, parameter behavior in detail, and the full return structure. An output schema exists but the description still explains the return format, which is helpful. There are no gaps: the agent knows exactly what to expect.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully compensates by explaining the 'domain' parameter: it is optional, filters by domain name, and matches domain equality or template_id prefix match, with an example. This is comprehensive and adds meaning far beyond the bare schema.

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 'bundled domain criteria templates', and further clarifies that these show what a well-specified verification rubric looks like. This distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'list_verifications' or 'verify_output', which serve different purposes.

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 clear context by stating it lists templates and mentions 'Free tier', implying it is always available. While it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives, the sibling tools are sufficiently distinct, so an agent can infer when to use this tool without confusion.

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