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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that it is a safe read operation. It adds that the output is an HTML tag for insertion, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential errors, dependencies on specific parameters, or how the tool handles invalid input, but given the annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. The core purpose is front-loaded and immediately understandable. There is no fluff, and the sentence length is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain how the type parameter interacts with the other parameters or what identifiers are needed for each placeholder type. The absence of an output schema means the description should describe the return format, but it only mentions 'HTML tag' without specifics. An agent may not know which parameters to supply for a given type, making the tool difficult to call correctly.

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% (type and qas_profile_question_id have descriptions). The tool description does not explain any parameters, leaving identifier, job_variable_id, form_question_id, system_column_title, and qas_profile_question_id ambiguous. With such low coverage, the description should compensate by clarifying parameter semantics, but it does not, making parameter usage difficult for the agent.

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 a specific action (convert a placeholder reference) and the output (HTML tag for an email template). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hires_list_template_placeholders, which lists placeholders, and email template creation/update tools. The verb 'convert' and resource 'placeholder reference' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is used when preparing email templates, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions or conditions. There is no reference to sibling tools or guidance on when not to use it, leaving the decision to the agent based on context.

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