list_contract_templates

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by specifying authorization requirements (ContractTemplatesAdmin, DoiT API access, entitlement) and tenant ownership, which is valuable beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the 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 compact (two sentences) and provides high-signal information about scope and permissions. The opening 'Manage' is broader than the actual list operation, but the second sentence immediately corrects it, so there is minimal waste.

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 simple read-only listing tool with one optional parameter, the description includes ownership scope, auth requirements, and PartnerOps context. It does not detail return structure or pagination, but those are not required for a list endpoint and no output schema is specified.

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 for the single customerContext parameter is 100%, so the structured schema already explains the parameter. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantic detail, hence the baseline score of 3.

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 identifies the action ('Lists contract templates'), the resource ('contract templates'), and the ownership scope ('owned by the authenticated tenant from the bearer token'). It also distinguishes from siblings like get_contract_template by emphasizing the plural listing and tenant scope.

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 usage context: which templates are returned (owned by the authenticated tenant) and the required permissions. It does not explicitly state when to use this instead of get_contract_template or list_contracts, but the tenant-scoped listing semantics make the intended use clear.

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