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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating the tool 'Returns a draft without storing or publishing it,' which tells the agent this is a non-persistent preparation step, beyond what the annotations say.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by parameter clarifications and non-persistence behavior. No filler or redundancy; every sentence adds value.

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 tool is complex (9 parameters, nested objects, no schema descriptions) but benefits from an output schema and annotations covering safety. The description covers the core intent and non-persistence behavior, yet omits usage guidance and many parameter details, leaving important gaps for an agent to infer from the schema alone.

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 0% across 9 parameters, including nested fields, so the description must carry the burden. It clarifies key ambiguous parameters (promptTitle as the respondent-facing question, branding/fromName/purpose as origin identifiers, theme colors as hex values), but leaves several parameters like mode, title, fields structure, description, and instructions unexplained. Partial compensation with clear gaps earns a 3.

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: 'Turns interview questions into a validated, shareable form draft.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like configure_webhook or get_template, which handle different resources.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The note about returning a draft without storing or publishing is behavioral context, not usage guidance.

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