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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating safety. The description adds the critical behavioral trait that it is a deterministic template with no AI spend, which goes beyond what annotations provide. It does not contradict 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and immediately provides usage distinction. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, an enum, and an output schema), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral transparency. The output schema handles return value details, so the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'formatted for a target assistant' and 'annotation' which relate to the parameters but does not add significant detail beyond the schema descriptions. It provides context but not explicit parameter semantics.

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 'Render a ready-to-paste coding prompt for an annotation, formatted for a target assistant.' It uses a specific verb ('Render'), identifies the resource (annotation prompt), and directly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'diagnose_annotation' by noting that it is a deterministic template with no AI spend.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (for a ready-to-paste prompt) and when not to ('for a deeper analysis use diagnose_annotation'). This provides clear guidance on choosing between alternatives.

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