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

Annotations only declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive write; the description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the plan-tier gate, the asynchronous external approval step, and an expected latency window (minutes to a few hours). It omits what happens on rejection or whether the template is callable before approval, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the blocking prerequisite, then the action, then the follow-up pointer. No filler.

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?

The async approval model and plan requirement are covered, which is the main complexity here, but for an 8-parameter tool with nested header/buttons objects, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description leaves substantial gaps about template composition and the approval result.

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 only 38%, and the description adds nothing about any of the 8 parameters. Undocumented fields like header (with text/format/media_url), buttons (type enum with url/phone_number), footer, category, and language must be inferred entirely from the schema structure.

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 ('Creates a WhatsApp template') plus a distinctive behavioral fact (submission to Meta for approval) that separates it from send_template and list_templates. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Gives a hard precondition ('Requires an Advance plan key') and routes the agent to list_templates for follow-up status checks, which is genuinely useful sequencing guidance. It stops short of saying when not to use it (e.g. use send_template to actually deliver an approved template), but the usage context is clear.

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