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

Goes beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false) by disclosing copy semantics ('Later template changes never alter it') and a safety guarantee ('Nothing is sent'). These are genuinely useful behavioral traits an agent could not infer from the structured fields.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the two key behavioral facts. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 adequately covers what the tool produces (a new draft email) and what it does not do (send). It could say more about the resulting draft's state or the productId requirement, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters, and the description adds meaning by tying the 'purpose journey' value to the journey-email outcome. It does not clarify the productId/broadcast relationship or the name parameter, so it sits at the baseline for high coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Copies a template into a new draft email') and clarifies the two flavors it can produce (newsletter or journey email). This clearly distinguishes it from create_email_template, update_email_template, and get_email_template, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 implies when to use it (starting a draft from an existing template) and maps the two purposes to newsletter vs journey emails, but it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance relative to siblings like create_newsletter or create_email_template.

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