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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine value beyond them by disclosing the return payload (recipe, slot schema, demo-filled slots) and the important caveat that the demo example uses library media rather than project assets.

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 front-loaded sentences, no filler, with the resource definition first and the workflow second. Dense but each clause carries information; only slight compression could improve it.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return contents, and it does so thoroughly (recipe, slots schema, demo example). It also supplies the required follow-up call, making the definition self-sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, and the schema already explains both id (from search_templates) and projectId (open project vs explicit, non-switching). The description adds no parameter detail beyond this, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (read one template by id) and enumerates exactly what is returned: the recipe (edit, moves, sounds, slot-filling), slots as JSON Schema, and the demo's filled slots. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings search_templates (the source of the id) and apply_template (the consumer).

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 anchors usage: the id comes from search_templates, the example slots must be replaced with this project's Asset IDs from search_assets, then apply_template is called. This is a clear before/after workflow. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or how it differs from reading via search_assets directly, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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