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

Annotations declare the write nature (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness; the description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: pages, widgets, and datasource categories are 'copied/derived automatically' from the source. This tells the agent the operation has side effects beyond creating a blank shell. It doesn't cover reversibility or downstream coupling to the source report, but with an output schema present, return behavior is already covered.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler: the action verb and resource land in the first five words, and the behavioral detail about automatic copying follows immediately. Every word earns its place; nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 3-parameter tool with 100% schema documentation, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the core semantics an agent needs to call it correctly. The only notable omission is lifecycle context (e.g., that templates can later be edited via update_template), which is a nice-to-have, not a correctness blocker.

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 all three parameters — including the crucial note that report_id is the source and that pages/widgets are copied from it. The description reinforces the copy behavior conceptually but adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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, and source: 'Create a template from an existing report.' The second sentence specifies exactly what gets copied (pages, widgets, datasource categories), which clearly distinguishes this from the inverse sibling create_report_from_template (report ← template) and from plain create_report. An agent can tell direction and scope at a glance.

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 context is clear: this is used when you have an existing report and want a derived template, and the schema reinforces the prerequisite via 'Source report ID (from list_reports)'. However, no alternative is explicitly named — it doesn't say to use create_report_from_template for the reverse direction — so the guidance stops at implied context rather than explicit exclusions.

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