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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint annotations it discloses non-obvious behavior: the call is invisible to the user ("It shows nothing to the user"), returns only fuzzy name matches with template_id, name and kind, defines the empty-result path, and states the auth prerequisite ("Needs Portant connected with sign-in").

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?

Purpose and the trigger example are front-loaded, and each subsequent sentence carries distinct information (invisibility, return shape, no-match path, follow-up chain, auth). The later sentences are densely chained with several actions, but nothing is filler.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the input derivation, the exact return fields, the empty-result case, the downstream tool chain, and the auth requirement. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and act on the result.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a translation rule the schema lacks: derive the query from the user's phrasing ("query 'mutual NDA' when the user says 'send a mutual NDA to Sam'") and omit the signer's name. That directly guides parameter construction rather than restating the schema.

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+resource ("Search the user's saved templates by name") and scopes it to the agent's use case of finding a document to send. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_templates and get_template, which list all or fetch one by id.

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?

Explicit sequencing: "Call it before you write a document to send," then "read a match with get_template and send it with send_for_signature," with an explicit no-match branch ("when it returns none, write the document and do not mention templates"). Alternatives and a concrete trigger utterance are both provided.

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