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

Annotation Contradiction: description says 'Creates a draft template' while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, a direct conflict similar to a documented write operation marked read-only. Although the description adds useful lifecycle detail (not published, needs admin approval), the contradiction forces a 1.

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?

Well-structured with a clear lead, bold workflow label, and front-loaded constraints; however, the lifecycle and workflow points are restated several times ('PROPOSE-AND-APPROVE ONLY', 'Workflow: PROPOSE step', 'approval ... remain a human decision'), adding mild redundancy.

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 single-required-parameter tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers lifecycle, constraints, and source. The main gap is the unexplained optional parameters, though these are non-essential for a basic correct call.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains pattern_id's source and eligibility constraint but says nothing about name, caller_id, or description; caller_id in particular has no inferable meaning from the description.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Propose a DRAFT strategy template from an emerging pattern.' It distinguishes itself from publishing, verifying, or cloning by stating it creates only a non-published draft, and from siblings like approve_proposal/publish_strategy via 'PROPOSE-AND-APPROVE ONLY.'

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?

Provides explicit preconditions: pattern_id must come from get_emerging_patterns and be an active, released pattern. It states what the tool cannot do (publish, verify, modify live templates, auto-apply), but does not explicitly name the approval/publishing siblings as next steps.

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