Listar templates

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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing pagination behavior and the specific failure mode (#200 = System User lacking 'Message Templates' permission), which is diagnostic context not present 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 what is listed and what fields come back, then pagination, then the error mapping. No filler and nothing buried.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return shape and does name the key fields; it also explains pagination and a common auth error. Minor gaps remain around page-size limits and whether results are filtered by status, but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 parameters are already documented including the META_WABA_ID fallback and the enum for response_format. The description only restates the limit/after pagination pair, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema — baseline 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?

Specific verb + resource: lists WABA templates and names the returned attributes (status, category, language). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling listing tool wa_list_phone_numbers, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer it should call this to inspect templates and paginate with limit/after. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as wa_explain_error or wa_diagnose.

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