Gabarit de structure du document

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the result is advisory, institution-specific rules override it, and the content varies by convention and discipline. It stops short of saying what happens when convention/domain are omitted or how the fallback/default template is chosen.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the template contains before the caveat. No filler, though the parenthetical convention list partially duplicates enum values already present in the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and the advisory nature of the template is stated. The main gap is that all five parameters are optional yet the description never explains the default or resolution behavior when none are supplied — the most likely invocation pattern for an agent.

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 coverage is 40%, with project_id and document_type already documented in the schema. The description compensates partially by enumerating the convention values (ГОСТ, française, internationale) and tying the template to discipline, but leaves language, domain_id, and the precedence/fallback relationship between project_id and document_type unexplained.

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 names a specific resource — the expected section structure (gabarit) for a document — and qualifies it by convention (GOST, French, international) and discipline, which is more than a restatement of the title. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling check_document_structure, so an agent cannot tell from the text alone whether this produces a template or validates an existing document.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call before drafting or when planning a document. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of the sibling that verifies structure, and no guidance for the all-optional parameter case. The precedence note ('les consignes de l'établissement priment toujours') guides how to apply the output rather than when to select this tool.

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