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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds: 'does not write any file', 'no API calls', 'Auth: none required', and 'Errors: effectively none'. These are valuable behavioral disclosures beyond the 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?

Three sentences, zero fluff, front-loaded purpose, then return format, then safety/auth. Efficient.

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 simple generator with one optional parameter, the description covers purpose, return format, side effects, auth, and errors. Nothing an agent needs to call 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a detailed enum description. The description adds the conditional return shape: `{ target, template }` when target given, or `{ templates }` with all three. This clarifies behavior based on parameter usage.

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 (generate) and resource (.env.example templates) plus the three integration targets, distinguishing it from sibling generators like ethora-generate-chat-component-app-tsx and ethora-generate-b2b-bootstrap-runbook.

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: it's for generating env templates for three integration targets. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous and the return format conditional on the target parameter gives usage context. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough.

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