List templates

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true. The description adds crucial context about HTML size bloat (multiply MB, overwhelms LLM context), efficient counting, and pagination using cursor parameters, without contradicting 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 two sentences plus a bold tip, no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and uses effective formatting (bold for emphasis). Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given 7 parameters with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers all key aspects: default behavior, performance concerns, efficient counting, pagination, and cross-referencing sibling tools for specific needs.

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?

Despite 100% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value: explains why include_html defaults false (context overload), how to use include parameter for total_count efficiently, and ties date_created with include for date-bounded counts. This goes beyond the 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 'List templates on your Lob account,' specifying the verb 'list' and resource 'templates.' It also distinguishes from sibling tools like lob_templates_get and lob_templates_search by mentioning alternatives for specific use cases.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: default returns slim records, use include_html:true for full HTML, or use lob_templates_get for single template. It also advises using include:['total_count'] with limit:1 for counts and directs to lob_templates_search for finding by name/metadata.

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