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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond them: this reads Meta's shared library, not account data, and is intended as a pre-create validation step. No rate limits or response shape are described, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the action and resource, with examples and the sibling workflow appended. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 fully annotated read-only tool with no output schema, the description conveys what the call returns (the inputs a library template needs) and the workflow it belongs to. It stops just short of describing the return structure, but that gap is minor given the annotations.

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 all three parameters are documented in the schema and baseline is 3. The description enriches the name parameter with example values (order_confirmation, delivery_update), which is helpful but does not explain language or profile_id beyond what the schema already says.

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 (look up) and a specific resource (a pre-approved template in Meta's template library, by name), with concrete examples. It implicitly distinguishes itself from whatsapp_template_get by scoping to the library rather than the account's own templates, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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?

Explicitly frames the workflow: use this 'to see the inputs it needs before creating it with whatsapp_template_create + library_template_name.' That gives clear when-to-use context and routes to the follow-up tool, but offers no exclusions or guidance on when to skip it.

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