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

The annotations only provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict that. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the dependency on KB metadata ('REAL metadata from the KB') and the requirement to verify object existence first. It does not cover failure modes or return format, but the added context goes beyond 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 dense and front-loaded with 'WHEN', and nearly every clause earns its place by providing triggers, template definitions, or a prerequisite. The run-on structure with long lists slightly reduces readability, but it remains appropriately sized.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and many siblings, the description provides enough to understand when to invoke it, what inputs to pass, and what to do first (calling get_object_details). It omits the expected output shape and edge-case behavior, but covers the essential selection and invocation requirements.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by defining each templateType value ('coc' = Chain of Command, etc.) and clarifying that methodName is for CoC or event handler templates. This extra semantic detail justifies a 4.

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 states a specific verb ('generates') and resource ('ready-to-use X++ code') for extensions/customizations. It also enumerates supported template types (coc, table_extension, event_handler, job, find_method), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_xpp_form or generate_query.

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 gives an explicit 'WHEN' clause, concrete trigger phrases, and a mandatory prerequisite to call get_object_details first. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it doesn't fully meet the 'when-not/alternatives' bar.

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