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

Annotations already cover read-only/destructive/idempotent traits, and the description adds valuable context beyond them: it provisions a collection and returns an HTML block for insertion. Stating the 'Needs Pro' and ownership constraints also clarifies authorization conditions beyond annotation data.

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?

Three dense sentences, with the trigger front-loaded and no filler. Each sentence adds distinct information: when to use, what it does, and constraints/dependencies. There is no redundancy with the schema.

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 description covers when to use, what action occurs, what is returned, the prerequisite (Pro), ownership scope, where to get recipe ids, and the follow-up publish step. Since there is no output schema, the explicit note about returning the HTML block is especially important for an agent knowing the result.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond pointing to list_data_recipes for recipe_id and the site-ownership constraint for site_id, but it doesn't carry significant extra semantic weight 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 opens with an explicit trigger ('Use when the user wants a contact form, waitlist, RSVP, guestbook, counter, or leaderboard') and then states the outcome: provisions a recipe's collection and returns an HTML block. This clearly identifies the verb (apply data template), the resource (data recipe), and how it differs from generic site-editing tools.

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 an explicit when-to-use trigger and useful constraints ('Needs Pro; scoped to a site you own'). It also points to list_data_recipes for recipe ids and mentions a follow-up step (publish with update_site), providing enough context. However, it doesn't explicitly describe when not to use it or contrast it with alternatives like set_site_data or define_collection_schema.

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