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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the return value is a link, the effect is a new editable board, and the operation consumes no AI credits. Missing details are minor (whether the template itself is consumed, any auth requirement).

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the primary action and result front-loaded before the cost note. Nothing redundant with the title.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, this is sufficient: the description supplies the return value (a link), the prerequisite (list_templates) and the cost profile. An agent has everything needed to select and call it 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters already say they come from list_templates, so the description's 'from list_templates' phrasing only reinforces the schema. No additional format or validation detail is offered, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 and outcome: get a link that opens a template as a new editable board. It also names the sibling that supplies the inputs (list_templates), so an agent can distinguish it from create_diagram and code_to_flowchart, which produce diagrams rather than link out to templates.

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?

Clear context: this is the follow-up step to list_templates, and 'Free — no AI credits' signals the cost trade-off versus the AI-generating siblings. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative for other cases, which keeps it below a 5.

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