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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds modest context—that the template is derived from 'required facts' and is a sample (non-mutating) artifact—but contributes little beyond the annotation. No contradiction between description and 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The action ('Generate a sample CSV or JSON template') is front-loaded, followed by the basis ('based on the required facts of a version') and the usage guidance. Every clause 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?

For a simple, fully-documented 3-parameter tool with a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is largely sufficient—it explains the output type (sample CSV or JSON template) and its role before upload. It does not detail the template's column/key structure, but that is contextual and not required for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%: format ('Template format', csv/json, default csv), groupId ('Policy group ID'), and versionId ('Version ID') are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Generate a sample CSV or JSON template') and ties it to a concrete basis ('required facts of a version'). It implies differentiation from upload/data tools via the phrase 'before uploading a dataset,' but does not explicitly name the sibling (lexq_dataset_upload), which keeps it just shy of a 5.

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?

'Use this to understand the expected data format before uploading a dataset' gives clear when-to-use context and positions the tool as a preparatory step in the upload workflow. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the placement before upload makes the intended usage unambiguous.

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