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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the minimal annotations: the template is not usable until Meta approves it, submission consumes the store's template allowance, and only text templates are supported. These are critical behaviors not present in the annotations (which are all false). No contradictions found.

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 three concise, information-dense sentences. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by key limitations and a critical approval dependency. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite the complexity (7 params, nested objects, output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, its limitations, approval process, and quota consumption. The output schema handles return values, and the input schema covers parameter details, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and use the tool 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%, so the schema already documents all parameters and their meanings. The description reinforces the structure (header text, body with {{1}} variables, footer) and the approval/allowance context, but adds little new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Create and submit a WhatsApp message template to Meta for approval.' It specifies the resource (WhatsApp message template), the action (create and submit), and adds distinguishing details like 'Text templates only' and 'add buttons in the app,' which differentiates it from other create_* tools.

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 provides explicit usage constraints: text-only templates, buttons to be added in the app, and that templates are not usable until Meta approves them. It also directs the user to check approval status with list_templates, an explicit alternative. This covers when and when-not to use the tool.

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