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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc.), so the description carries the burden of behavior. It discloses key behaviors: tokens fall back to defaults, empty issuerName uses workspace name, logoUrl format restrictions, and detailed composition rules for layout/order/freeform. This goes beyond the schema and is highly informative. It does not mention the return format, but an output schema exists, so that gap is acceptable.

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 dense but well-structured: it opens with purpose, then explains optionality, logo constraints, composition details, and plan requirement. Each sentence adds necessary information without fluff. Slightly longer than ideal, but every part earns its place.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (many nested tokens, positions, translations, etc.), the description covers the critical behaviors and constraints that are not obvious from the schema. It explains defaults, format limitations, and the freeform coordinate system. Combined with the schema's per-field descriptions, an agent has sufficient information to use the tool 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already provides descriptions for tokens. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains the fallback behavior, the composition model (how layout/order/freeform interact), and logo format constraints. This is valuable context that helps an agent correctly construct the parameters.

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 'Creates a certificate template' – a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from siblings like update_certificate, get_certificate, and list_certificates. It also provides context about the tokens structure, making the scope 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 usage (it's a create operation) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as 'use update_certificate to modify existing templates' or 'use get_certificate to retrieve one'. It does mention the plan requirement, which is a prerequisite, but not when to choose this over other tools.

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