list_templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the 'No storage/network' coverage constraint, but it is ambiguous (does it mean those templates are excluded from results, or that no storage/network access occurs?) and it says nothing about result shape or ordering.

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 that are front-loaded with the payload scope and free of filler. The trailing 'No storage/network' fragment is abrupt and could be clearer, but nothing is wasted.

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 zero parameters and annotations covering the safety profile, the definition is nearly sufficient. However, there is no output schema, and the description never hints at what a returned starter looks like or whether the list is grouped, so return expectations remain opaque.

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 the baseline of 4 applies. The schema has nothing to document and the description adds no parameter semantics, which is acceptable here.

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 ('database starters/templates') and even enumerates the categories covered (membership, content, booking, commerce). It is clear what the tool returns, though it never differentiates itself from siblings like list_projects or create_schema_from_template.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives. The only scoping statement ('No storage/network') reads as a coverage caveat rather than selection advice, so the agent gets no signal about when this tool is the right choice.

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