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

The readOnlyHint annotation is reinforced and expanded by the description: it explicitly states 'This is a read-only dry run — nothing is created', and adds the behavioral constraint that only ACTIVE templates can be previewed. This goes beyond the annotation by detailing what the preview returns and the activation requirement.

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 three short sentences, each carrying essential information: the action and its output, the read-only guarantee, and the active-template constraint. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no redundant words.

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?

Given the simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the presence of readOnlyHint annotation, the description is fully sufficient. It explains what the tool returns, that it is non-destructive, and the precondition for use. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single 'template' parameter, including an example and a pointer to the list tool. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-specific information, so the baseline of 3 applies; the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb 'Preview' and the specific resource 'domain template', and lists exactly what is previewed (fact definitions, sample rules, apply plan). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'apply' tool by emphasizing this is a dry run, and from 'list' by focusing on previewing a single template's provisioning output.

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 explicitly says 'before applying it', indicating when to use this tool (prior to applying a template). It also notes 'Only ACTIVE templates can be previewed' and directs the user to lexq_domain_templates_list for available keys, providing concrete usage context and a clear alternative for discovering templates.

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