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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that the pack 'includes the complete prompt, usage guide, and edge-case handling,' which hints at static content but says nothing about return format, side effects, permissions, or whether output is fixed or query-scoped.

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 short and front-loads a slogan ('Turn expertise into output') before details. It is not bloated, but the opening sentence is vague and 'in minutes' is marketing filler rather than useful information.

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 one-parameter tool this could be adequate, but it leaves critical context missing: what the tool actually returns, whether the 'prompt pack' is static, and why it would be chosen over rd-story-gen-tool or rd-story-check-tool. The 'restaurant and brand teams' framing also sits oddly with the rd-story namespace.

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?

There is one optional 'query' parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains its purpose. The description adds no additional meaning about how the query scopes or alters the generated template, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 calls itself a 'story tpl tool prompt pack' and says it helps teams 'produce professional results,' but it never states a concrete verb or resource. It does not explain what a 'story tpl' is or distinguish this tool from siblings such as rd-story-gen-tool and rd-story-check-tool.

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?

It names target users ('restaurant and brand teams') but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison with the related rd-story sibling tools. An agent has no basis for choosing this tool over alternatives from the description alone.

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