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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar for added value is met comfortably: the description reveals the failure mode (unresolved {{tokens}} signal a missing required argument), the default-binding semantics for effective arguments, and the downstream action of calling referenced sm_ tools. This is substantive behavior beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Four sentences with no filler: purpose and return value are front-loaded, followed by input source, failure mode, and follow-up action. Every sentence earns its place and each conveys a distinct piece of information an agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: instruction text, effective arguments with defaults, unresolved-token error signal, and the expected follow-up of invoking referenced tools. Nothing needed to call and chain this tool correctly is missing.

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 meaning beyond the schema: arguments are bound to prompt placeholders, omitted optionals fall back to defaults, and unresolved tokens indicate a required argument gap. This clarifies how the two parameters interact at runtime.

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 states a specific verb ('Render') and resource ('Space Monkey prompt workflow'), and clarifies what is returned: complete instruction text plus effective bound arguments. It also differentiates itself from the sibling family by explicitly naming sm_list_prompts as the source of prompt names, so an agent can tell the two apart.

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 establishes a clear workflow context: prompt names and arguments come from sm_list_prompts, and the rendered output should be followed by calling the sm_ tools it references. This gives strong usage context and routes the agent to the upstream tool, though it stops short of explicit 'when not to use' or exclusion statements.

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