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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that no account is needed, the operation is free and instant, and the pay-skeleton's payment element is hosted and non-removable. It also warns against removing data-yetty-* marks and writing custom JS, which informs the agent of critical constraints. It does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, but the pull semantics and 'no account needed' clarify it's a safe retrieval.

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 long but well organized: it opens with the core purpose, then lists the four templates with per-template details, then covers usage constraints, and finally the conditional live-plan extension. Each sentence adds distinct information, and the structure is logical. It could be tightened slightly, but it remains efficient for the amount of context it conveys.

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 tool with a single optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all template choices, explains the conditional regions and the grammar reference, provides explicit do's and don'ts (e.g., 'NEVER remove or rename data-yetty-* marks'), and mentions the live-plan option. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 100% with a simple enum of strings, so the baseline is 3. The description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema by explaining what each skeleton contains (e.g., 'checkout-skeleton' includes 'cart / checkout / thank-you markup with every data-yetty-component and data-yetty-slot mark'). This extra detail helps the agent choose the correct parameter value.

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 ('Pull') and a clear resource ('a ready-made Yetty template file WITH its usage contract'), and enumerates the four distinct template keys. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like yetty_authoring_guide (which is for grammar) and the batch/auth tools, so an agent can immediately see this is the template-pulling utility.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use the tool, including the template categories and the live-plan extra. It implicitly routes grammar questions to yetty_authoring_guide by mentioning the 'full grammar' is there, and it explicitly states constraints like 'write NO cart/checkout/account JavaScript of your own.' There is no explicit 'do not use this when...' statement, but the alternatives are implied through the sibling references.

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