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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description goes well beyond that by confirming 'nothing is created', explaining the semantics of factConflicts, the P-061 failure contract, and why plan may be null. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Every sentence is load-bearing: the first defines the output, the second the dry-run guarantee, the third the conflict semantics and remediation, the fourth an edge case. Information is front-loaded with no filler.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does: it names the fact definitions, sample rules with descriptions, apply plan, and factConflicts, plus the P-061 failure mode. Nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret the result 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single template parameter is already documented with a format example and a pointer to lexq_domain_templates_list. The description adds no new parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Preview exactly what a domain template will provision') and then enumerates the concrete payload: fact definitions, sample rules, and an apply plan. This clearly separates it from lexq_domain_templates_apply and lexq_domain_templates_list.

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 establishes the workflow context ('before applying it') and states the blocking condition clearly: while factConflicts is non-empty, apply fails with P-061 and nothing is created, so the user must delete or change those facts. It stops short of naming lexq_domain_templates_apply explicitly as the follow-up tool, but the implied usage is unambiguous.

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