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

Annotations are all false, indicating no read-only, idempotent, or destructive hints, but the description clearly states it creates a resource and requires authentication. It adds provenance stamping and return of pitch id, which is useful beyond annotations. However, it doesn't disclose details like ownership implications or whether duplicate names are allowed.

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 concise, with three sentences that state the function, key structural elements, ownership, provenance, return value, and authentication requirement. No fluff, and important details are front-loaded.

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 creation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides necessary context: ownership, provenance, return value, and auth. It could mention what happens on duplicate names or whether the tool is idempotent, but given the tool's simplicity, this is nearly complete.

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 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds the purpose of the templates but doesn't add detail on the 'prompt' parameter's relationship to drafting. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the load.

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 that it creates a reusable pitch template with subject and body templates, owned by the user. It distinguishes itself from related tools like create_outreach_campaign by focusing on templates, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to differentiate 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 description implies usage when a reusable pitch template is needed, and notes provenance and authentication requirements. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over create_outreach_campaign or draft_outreach_email, or provide exclusions.

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