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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint false and destructiveHint false; the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it requires a capability, models signeeDetails as roles rather than specific people, and clarifies that no fields inside signeeDetails are required. It does not describe the return value or side effects on the original PDF, but the added preconditions and domain behavior are genuinely useful.

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 compact and front-loaded: first the purpose, then the workflow relationship, then the critical role-versus-person caveat, then the capability requirement. Every sentence carries useful information and there is no filler or redundant repetition of schema content.

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 tool with no output schema and meaningful complexity, the description covers the key preconditions (uploaded PDF, templates capability), the conceptual model, and the relationship to create_document. It could explicitly state what the response contains, such as the new template identifier, but the information needed to invoke the tool correctly is essentially complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual value on top of the schema by explaining that fullName is normally a label like 'Buyer', that contact details are optional unless the same person signs every time, and that nothing inside signeeDetails is required. This complements the already-detailed schema property descriptions.

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 action and resource: creating a reusable template from an already-uploaded PDF. It also differentiates the tool from siblings by explaining that templates bundle a document with signature fields so create_document later only needs recipients. This leaves no ambiguity about what create_template does or how it fits into the workflow.

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 clear precondition: the templates capability is required and get_account_capabilities should be checked first. It also explains the role-versus-person model and when contact details should be omitted. It does not explicitly state when to use create_document instead of create_template, but the downstream relationship is clear enough to infer the correct usage.

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