validate_template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating check. The description adds the useful context that validation targets Meta's submission rules, but says nothing about what a failure looks like (errors returned vs. thrown) or whether it can be re-run freely.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The purpose leads and the usage condition follows naturally.

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-only validation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and timing but omits what the validation returns or how failures surface. An agent can invoke it correctly but cannot predict the outcome shape.

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 'id' parameter, so the description would ideally clarify it. It only implicitly conveys that the id is the stored template's identifier; given how self-evident a single required template id is, this is acceptable but not compensating for the gap.

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 (validate) and resource (stored WhatsApp template) plus the rule set it checks against (Meta submission rules). The word 'stored' implicitly separates it from validate_template_draft, though the sibling is never named outright.

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?

'before submitting or rewriting' gives a clear triggering context for when to call this tool. It stops short of naming alternatives (validate_template_draft, submit_stored_template) or stating when not to use it.

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