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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful non-annotation context: no AI credits are spent and a template id is returned for render. It stops short of stating auth requirements or what happens with an empty source (which is actually in the schema, not here).

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 short, front-loaded sentences. Each carries distinct information (what, return value, cost). No waste.

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?

For a 7-parameter creation tool with no output schema and only 57% schema coverage, the description should say more about the resulting artifact (id shape, whether it's a draft, how to render it). It covers the essentials and the cost angle but leaves the return contract and several params thin.

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 57%, which puts the baseline near the middle. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (nothing on name, tags, sizes, page, schema), so it neither compensates for the coverage gap nor adds value over the schema's own inline docs.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Save HTML as a reusable template version') with a clear distinguishing clause ('without an AI call'). The agent can separate this from create_template (generates via AI) and save_template_version (versions an existing template) without opening schemas.

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 'without an AI call' and 'Does not spend AI credits' clauses imply when to prefer this over AI-generating siblings, but the description never names create_template or save_template_version explicitly. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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