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

Annotations are all false (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), so the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It adds the prerequisite that only published templates can be sent, but does not disclose what happens on invalid templates, whether a message record is created, or how delivery works. The basic side effect is clear from 'Send', but the description adds limited behavioral depth.

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 two sentences plus a compact JSON example, with no filler. The key constraint (published templates only) is stated early, and the example is directly illustrative. Everything present earns its place.

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 description plus schema cover the core action, required parameters, and a precondition, but gaps remain: the 'method' enum (all/single) is not explained, there is no mention of what the operation returns, and error conditions are absent. Given the tool has nested objects and no output schema, a bit more context about routing options would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema already documents all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's example goes further by showing how the 'data' object maps to template variables (e.g., name, resetUrl), which clarifies the nested structure. It does not add semantic detail for 'method' or 'channels', but the schematic descriptions already cover those fields.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Send a message to a user using a published notification template'), making the operation unambiguous. The added note that only published templates can be sent distinguishes it from publish/draft operations, and the example reinforces the intended use. It is clearly not a generic send_message 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?

The description supplies clear context by restricting use to published templates and stating that publishing a draft is a separate operation, giving an implicit when-not. It also implies a single recipient ('to a user'), differentiating from list-based send tools, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or describe when to choose this over send_message. Thus it provides context with one exclusion but lacks explicit alternative routing.

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