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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it discloses that the tool returns 'the template slug and its field definitions' and that it is meant to be used before creating a document. The annotations (openWorldHint: false, destructiveHint: false) offer limited information, so the description's disclosure of output and sequencing is useful. No contradiction 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 two concise sentences that immediately state the primary purpose, then add return value and usage context. No wasted words; it is front-loaded with the core function and efficiently communicates essential details.

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 one parameter and a straightforward purpose, the description is quite complete. It covers the input type, the output (template slug and field definitions), and its place in the workflow (before CreateDocument). The output schema exists, so return values are further documented; the description still adds useful contextual hooks. Slight lack of alternative usage or error conditions, but acceptable for this simplicity level.

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?

The schema provides no description for the 'query' parameter (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does so by indicating that the query is a 'natural-language document request,' giving the parameter clear purpose. While it doesn't mention constraints like max length or provide examples, it sufficiently explains what the parameter represents for a single-parameter 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Find the best template match for a natural-language document request.' It specifies the action (find), the resource (template match), and the input type (natural-language request). It distinguishes itself from siblings like document_template_list_templates by focusing on matching/selection rather than mere listing.

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 provides clear context by mentioning 'before DocumentService.CreateDocument,' indicating when this tool should be used (as a precursor to document creation). However, it does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use list_templates to browse all templates' or 'do not use if you already know the template slug.'

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