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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the redundant 'Read-only' adds little. However, the 'drafts-first: the user reviews before anything is sent or posted' clause is genuine extra context about what the returned routine does, which annotations cannot express.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and with no filler. The second sentence ('Read-only') is largely redundant against the annotations, which is the only minor waste.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys what is returned (the routine/instructions) and the drafts-first behavior. It omits error handling for an invalid slug, but annotations carry the safety profile and the gap is minor.

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 both parameters (slug format and the ai_tool enum with default) are fully documented in the schema. The description restates the tool options already enumerated in the schema and adds no new syntax or format guidance, so the 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 and resource — retrieving the copy-paste routine/instructions for one WhatShouldMyBotDo use case — and scopes it to the four supported AI tools. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from plan_first_agent or search_use_cases, though the slug-based retrieval implies it operates downstream of them.

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?

Usage is only implied: the schema notes the slug comes from search_use_cases or plan_first_agent, but the description itself gives no when-to-use guidance or exclusions. The 'drafts-first' note describes the artifact rather than when to call the tool.

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