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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the canonical-company scope and the two lookup paths, but doesn't disclose return shape, error behavior, or the exact-one-identifier expectation.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and identifier modes, followed by the one conditional parameter note. No filler or repetition.

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?

With only three optional parameters and rich schema descriptions, the description is mostly sufficient, but it does not state that exactly one of template_id or share_code is needed, nor what a successful load returns. Since there is no output schema, a bit more return-value clarity would improve completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces when expected_template_kind matters but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions of share_code, template_id, and the expected-kind mismatch behavior.

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 states a specific verb ('Load'), a specific resource ('one canonical company template'), and two concrete identifier modes (ID or public t-xxxx share code). This clearly separates it from siblings like list_templates, save_template, and delete_template.

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 explicitly tells the caller when to supply expected_template_kind ('when the caller requires a generation_preset or batch_workflow'). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, but the single-template load intent is clear enough for tool selection among the siblings.

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