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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's safe and idempotent. The description adds crucial behavioral context: the tool returns a haveny.co article URL in the first line and instructs to include it as a clickable markdown link. No contradictions with annotations.

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 concise for the information it conveys: first sentence states purpose, then lists templates, and ends with an important directive. The IMPORTANT callout is essential but could be slightly more integrated. No wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains that a URL is returned and how to use it. It covers the tool's action and response format adequately. For a template retrieval tool with rich annotations and schema, it is fairly complete, though doesn't detail the full structure of the response beyond the URL.

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 detailed descriptions for each enum value. The description adds some contextual legal references (e.g., §5855) but does not significantly extend meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies as schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool returns a ready-to-fill California HOA letter template and lists specific template types (hearing request, records inspection, fine objection, IDR invocation). It distinguishes from sibling tools that check legality or obligations. The verb 'return' and resource 'template' are specific.

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 description specifies when to use each template value and instructs to pass 'list' to see all available templates. It implies usage for generating specific letters but does not explicitly mention when not to use or compare to alternatives like check_fine_legality. Still, it provides clear context for selection.

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