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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns server-known values with no collection side effect, useful context, but does not describe error behavior or what happens for unknown company/template combinations.

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 sentence with the purpose front-loaded and no wasted clauses. The colon-separated result clause is slightly dense but earns its place by explaining the return purpose.

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 not be described, and the description covers the tool's role adequately. But for a 3-parameter tool with nested objects and only 33% schema coverage, the missing parameter meaning is a real 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 should compensate for undocumented parameters, but it never mentions companyId, templateSlug, or the fields array. The one schema description ('UUID value wrapper') is generic and adds little, leaving the parameter semantics largely unexplained.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('a template's company auto-fill values') and clarifies the return content, distinguishing it from similar siblings like document_template_resolve_template by emphasizing prefill of company-known values. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never explicitly names the sibling it differs from.

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 phrase 'before collecting anything from the founder' implies the workflow position (a pre-step prior to founder data collection), which is useful implied guidance. However, it names no alternatives or exclusions and doesn't say when NOT to call it, so usage is only partially specified.

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