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

Annotations already declare the tool is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds crucial behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that no change occurs until a human approves the exact request in Settings > MCP and execute_approved_action is called, and that MCP approval requirements are configurable by the organization administrator while business workflow approvals always apply. This two-step approval gating is exactly the kind of behavioral disclosure an agent needs for a mutating tool.

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 four sentences and front-loads the action ('Apply a template to a site's purchase list') after a somewhat generic context sentence. The approval workflow details are valuable and earn their place, but the opening 'Use this when working with RetailHardHat purchase_lists records in the connected organization' is slightly filler and could be tightened without loss.

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?

The tool has a nested input object, an output schema, and annotations covering safety hints. The description adequately explains the approval workflow and action scope, but it is incomplete for parameter semantics: it does not clarify the structure or meaning of siteId, templateId, or projectId, forcing the agent to rely entirely on the schema. For a tool with 0% schema description coverage and nested parameters, the description should do more to guide correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It only implies that siteId and templateId are relevant ('apply a template to a site's purchase list') but does not describe the data object, the optional projectId, or any format/validation details. The nested 'data' parameter is completely unaddressed, leaving the agent to infer its purpose from the schema alone.

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 and resource: 'Apply a template to a site's purchase list.' It explicitly names the resource type ('purchase_lists records') and distinguishes this tool from sibling apply_*_template tools by scoping to purchase lists. An agent can tell this apart from apply_task_template or apply_budget_template without opening the schema.

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 gives a broad context ('Use this when working with RetailHardHat purchase_lists records') but does not name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool. There is no mention of sibling tools like get_purchase_template, list_purchase_templates, or preview tools. Usage is implied by the resource context, which is minimally acceptable but lacks explicit routing guidance.

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