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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description nevertheless reinforces it by promising the template stays unchanged, which is the key behavioral guarantee for this operation. It adds no information about return shape, size limits, or failure modes, which keeps it below 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the mutability guarantee and the next step. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 one-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers intent, safety, and the follow-up step, but leaves the agent without any sense of what the returned canvas document looks like or how to consume it. The description is in French while the name, title, and annotations are English, a minor consistency gap.

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 0% for the single required templateId, so the description must carry the burden and it does not: nothing says where a template id comes from (presumably list_managed_templates) or what format it takes. The word 'modèle' only loosely implies the parameter's meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: read the native canvas document of a template, with the purpose stated (compose a personalized proposal). This distinguishes it from neighbours like get_template_review or list_managed_templates. It stops short of 5 because 'document canvas natif' is never expanded on, leaving the exact content returned somewhat opaque.

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?

Explicitly frames the workflow: read here, then submit the adapted document via submit_site_proposal, which names the sibling and the condition that selects it. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it (e.g. for non-template documents), but the context is clear enough to route correctly.

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