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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only says the output is a "copy-paste prompt pack with examples." It does not say whether the tool reads or writes anything, what the response looks like, whether the optional query scopes output, or any side effects — all of which matter for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Only two sentences, but both are filler: "production-ready," "run today," "copy-paste prompt pack" consume the space that should describe behavior. The content that would earn its place — the actual function and output — is absent.

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 tool with an optional scoping parameter, no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the generated artifact contains and how it relates to the analyze/board/diag/formula siblings. It instead gives promotional copy, leaving an agent unable to predict the 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?

There is a single optional `query` parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains it. The description adds nothing about how the query is interpreted or what happens when it is omitted, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 essentially restates the name: "a production-ready sql tpl tool system." It never says what the tool actually produces (SQL templates? a workflow prompt? analysis?) or what distinguishes it from sql-analyze-tool, sql-board-tool, sql-diag-tool and sql-formula-tool, so an agent cannot tell which SQL sibling to pick.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no sibling is named as an alternative. "A workflow you can run today" is marketing framing rather than a usage condition, so selection must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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