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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior, which the description does not contradict. It adds valuable context about privacy (never requesting campaign/note content and keeping it local) and details the template contents, enriching transparency beyond the structured annotations.

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 moderately long but well-structured: it starts with the tool's purpose, then breaks down the report and brief contents, and ends with a privacy note. Each sentence provides useful information, though the section lists could have been slightly more concise.

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 simple template-fetching tool, the description is fairly complete. It explains the two template types with their sections and includes a privacy behavior note. With no output schema, it could have mentioned the return format, but the content details largely compensate.

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?

The schema provides full coverage of the 'template' parameter with an enum and description. The tool description adds meaning by elaborating on what each enum value ('report' or 'brief') contains, listing the sections covered, which helps the agent choose correctly.

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 the tool gets Lenny Zeltser's cyber threat intel template, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by naming the author and domain, and details the two template variants (report and brief), making it 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 explains the difference between the report and brief templates, providing clear context on what each offers. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over the many sibling template tools (e.g., cti_get_brief_template) or other domain templates, so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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