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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing what the payload contains (template, block syntax, label/key patterns) and the downstream consequence of not calling it, which is genuine behavioral context for a documentation tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the tool's output and followed by the usage directive. Dense but every clause carries information; the em-dash enumeration is slightly heavy but not wasteful.

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 read-only, single-parameter guide tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, what it is for, and when it must be called. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single required 'project' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including a pointer to list-projects and a concrete example. The description adds nothing on parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource: it returns the format and this project's conventions for requirements documents, enumerating the template, requirement-block syntax, and label/key patterns. It is clearly distinguishable from create-document, which it explicitly frames as the composing counterpart.

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 instructs 'Call this BEFORE composing a document with create-document,' naming both the alternative tool and the ordering condition. It also supplies the consequence of skipping it (publishing as plain prose with no requirements), so the agent knows exactly when this is required.

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