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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The word 'finished' adds some value (implies a finalized, non-draft artifact), but the description says nothing about preconditions (template must exist, required permissions) or whether field keys must match the template's expected keys. With annotations present, the bar is lower, so 3 is fair.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no filler. Efficient, though its brevity is arguably the cause of the missing guidance rather than pure conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, for a creation tool with nested objects and only 33% schema coverage, missing details about template resolution, field-key expectations, and permissions leave a meaningful gap.

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 only 33%, so the description carries more burden. It does name all three concepts ('company', 'template slug', 'field values'), which maps to companyId, templateSlug, and fields, but adds no format detail (key/value pairing, item limits, UUID wrapper). It partially compensates but not fully.

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 finished document') plus the mechanism ('from a template slug and field values'). This implicitly distinguishes it from documents_create_from_user_template, though the differentiation is not called out 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 only implied through the 'from a template slug' qualifier; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance despite several nearby siblings (documents_create_from_user_template, documents_resolve_template_prefill, document_template_resolve_template). An agent must infer the selection rule.

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