GET all or email/sms templates

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the description does not need to restate those traits. It adds the required auth scope ('locations/templates.readonly') and endpoint, but does not disclose default filtering behavior, pagination, deleted-template handling, or response shape.

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 and front-loads the verb, resource, and endpoint in one sentence with no filler. The wording 'all or email/sms templates' is slightly ungrammatical and hurts clarity, but the overall structure is efficient.

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 strong read-only annotations, high schema coverage, and required parameters explicitly present in the schema, the description provides enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool. The lack of an output schema and response-format details is a minor gap, but the endpoint and resource name make the expected return type evident.

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 83%, so the schema already documents skip, limit, type, deleted, originId, and locationId well enough. The description only loosely hints at email/sms filtering and adds no real semantic value beyond the enum and parameter names already present.

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 uses an explicit GET verb, names the resource (location templates), and gives the exact endpoint path, which helps distinguish it from other read-only sibling tools. However, the phrasing 'all or email/sms templates' is awkward and leaves whether 'all' is a distinct filter mode somewhat ambiguous.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternative exclusion is given. The resource 'templates' makes the intended use reasonably clear and no sibling tool covers the same endpoint, but the description does not state when to choose this over other locations or template-related tools.

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