list_email_templates

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value by disclosing the return payload ('template names and IDs') and the location scoping, both of which matter because no output schema exists to convey them.

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 short sentences with zero filler, and the core action and scope are front-loaded before the return-value detail. Every clause carries information.

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-argument read tool with no output schema, describing the returned fields and location scope covers what an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around volume/pagination behavior and whether results can be filtered, but nothing blocks correct invocation.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to describe; the baseline for a 0-param tool is 4. Nothing in the description contradicts or misrepresents the empty 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (email templates) with a scope qualifier ('in the current GoHighLevel location'). It is trivially distinguishable from siblings such as list_tags or list_pipelines, and it even names what it returns.

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 phrase 'for use in workflow email actions' implies the downstream context for the returned IDs, which hints at when this tool is useful. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and names no alternative tool for retrieving templates by other means.

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