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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read behavior is covered. The description adds useful context about rendering old cards to the correct end state, but it does not reveal substantial behavioral traits beyond that, such as caching, version resolution, or response semantics.

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 short and front-loaded, but the German and English sentences say exactly the same thing, creating redundancy. One well-placed sentence would carry the same information more efficiently.

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 simple read-only status tool, the description gives enough situational context and purpose. However, because there is no output schema and no parameter explanations, an agent still lacks clarity about what the returned 'state' looks like and how the optional versionId changes the call.

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%, so the description carries the full burden of explaining templateId and versionId. It mentions 'template version' but does not clarify which parameter is which, that templateId is required, or how versionId affects the returned state. This is a clear 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: it 'reads the current state of a template version' (liest den aktuellen Zustand einer Vorlagenversion). It also scopes itself to the interactive template card, which distinguishes it from broader template tools like template_get and template_preview.

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?

The description explicitly says 'only for the interactive template card' (Nur fuer die interaktive Vorlagen-Karte), giving a clear condition for when to use it. It does not name alternative tools, but the exclusion is explicit enough to guide selection away from general template tools.

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