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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the rationale (an old card needs to render the correct end state), which gives genuine context for why this read exists separately from template_get, but no auth, rate-limit, or freshness/staleness behavior is disclosed.

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 substantive content is one sentence, front-loaded with the scope restriction, which is good. But the bilingual German/English duplication doubles the length without adding information, which is wasteful for a description this short.

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 no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description needed to carry the burden of explaining the two identifiers and what state is returned. It explains neither, leaving the agent unsure what versionId does or what 'state' means in the response.

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% and neither of the two UUID parameters is explained anywhere. The phrase 'state of a template version' hints that versionId selects the version, but the required/optional split (templateId required, versionId optional) and the interaction between them are never disambiguated.

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 and resource: reads the current state of a template version. The scope qualifier ('for the interactive template card only') distinguishes it from the many other template_* siblings such as template_get and template_preview, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling tool.

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 'nur fuer die interaktive Vorlagen-Karte' restriction implies when this is and is not appropriate, which is useful routing. However no alternative is named, so an agent must infer that template_get/template_list cover non-card use cases.

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