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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the returned fields (id, name, goal, trigger, message), the meaning of asks_for, and the fact that 'Every plan has automations', which removes a plausible plan-gating question.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the follow-on sentences map returned fields and asks_for values without padding. The example list is slightly long but each example illustrates a distinct template goal, so it earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly takes on the job of naming the returned fields and explaining asks_for. Combined with annotations covering safety and a parameterless schema, an agent has what it needs to call this and chain into sprkly_create_automation_from_template; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4 and there is nothing parameter-wise to compensate for. The description instead spends its space on output field semantics and the prerequisite values that downstream creation needs, which is the relevant information for a no-arg listing tool.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('the ready-made Instagram automations... the same ones as the template gallery in the app') and enumerates concrete examples such as 'send a link when people comment a word'. It implicitly separates this from sprkly_list_automations by framing these as pre-built templates, though it never names that sibling 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?

Usage is clearly implied and reinforced: it explains that sprkly_create_automation_from_template consumes these templates and what each 'asks_for' value requires. It stops short of explicit when-not guidance, e.g. telling the agent to use sprkly_list_automations instead when the user wants their own existing automations.

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