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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: the required pm_templates:write scope and the fact that templates are unlinked, reusable definitions. It does not cover return format or uniqueness behavior, but the auth requirement is a meaningful addition.

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 with no waste: the action first, then the definitional context, then the scope requirement. Every sentence 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?

For a 15-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it omits the post-creation flow (how the template is later consumed via create_pm_schedule) and any note on the seeded defaults. Annotations and full schema coverage carry most of the weight, but there is room to do more.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 15 parameters including the title uniqueness constraint and the PUBLISHED form_template caveat. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 ("Create a new PM template") and clarifies the resource is not linked to a site/asset, distinguishing it from create_pm_schedule. The mention that templates "seed new PM schedules" further separates it from its siblings without naming them 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 implied through the definition of what a template is and that it seeds schedules, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, and no guidance on choosing create_pm_template over create_pm_schedule. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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