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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds that the output is sample wording for adaptation, but it does not provide additional behavioral details such as legal-advice limitations or output structure beyond the brief return statement.

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, front-loaded with the return behavior and followed by a concrete usage example. Every sentence contributes to selecting or calling the tool, with no wasted text.

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 states what the tool returns and gives a typical usage scenario, and the rich schema covers the nested input parameters. Because there is no output schema, it could say slightly more about the returned wording, but the existing description is adequate for an agent to call 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%, so the input schema already documents all six parameters in detail. The description mentions percentage or dollar amounts, causes, and named charities, but it does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource: 'Return sample bequest wording' for a will or trust. It also scopes the operation to sample wording that the person or attorney can adapt, which implicitly separates it from siblings like create_will or add_charity_to_existing_will, but it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 gives a clear usage context with 'Use for quick questions like "how do I word a gift to charity in my will?"'. However, it does not state when not to use it or explicitly compare it against sibling tools.

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