List PDF templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description goes beyond these by adding behavioral details: 'this endpoint is not paginated and returns all templates at once.' It also explains built-in id values ('DE', 'EN') and their role as layout/language controls. No contradictions found.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses three short paragraphs each with a distinct piece of useful information. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The tool is relatively simple with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description explains the purpose, the non-pagination behavior, and the relationship to document creation. It does not describe the response structure beyond the built-in id values, which is a minor gap for a list tool.

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 is only 50% (only 'type' has a description; 'response_format' lacks one). The description does not explain 'type' or 'response_format' parameters at all, leaving the agent to infer their meaning from the schema's incomplete descriptions. Since coverage is below 50%, the description should compensate but does not.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List the PDF layout templates configured in your easybill account.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like list_text_templates by naming 'PDF layout templates' and the account 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 context for when to use this tool: to list available PDF templates for use as 'pdf_template' when creating documents. It also notes that the endpoint is not paginated and returns all templates. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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