List product templates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond that: a fixed 25-result page size, path-based pagination chosen for HTTP cacheability, and the presence of a total field for computing page counts. It does not describe sort order or whether templates are shop-scoped, which is a minor omission.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and then escalating to pagination mechanics. Every sentence carries information; the only slight redundancy is restating the pagination endpoint and its purpose in two adjacent sentences.

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 a single optional parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: result count, how to page, and where to find the total. It would be complete at 5 if it named the paged sibling tool explicitly or indicated the shape of each template entry.

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 100% and the single 'account' parameter is documented in the schema as an exact private shop profile label, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about how 'account' scopes the listed templates, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List available product templates') and adds the 25-result batch size, so the agent knows exactly what the call returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the many siblings that list the same resource (list_product_templates_paged, list_product_templates_by_category, search_product_templates), which is the main gap.

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?

It gives real next-step guidance for pagination ('use the /page/{N} variant', '1-indexed', 'use the total field to calculate total pages'). But it frames pagination as a URL variant rather than naming the actual sibling tool list_product_templates_paged, and it gives no criteria for choosing this list tool over search_product_templates or the by_category variants.

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