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

The description aligns with the annotations: fetching by id is a read-only operation and not destructive. It adds that the call returns the full record and is a minimal fetch interface, but it does not add much behavioral context beyond what the annotations already establish.

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 two compact sentences, front-loads the core action and resource, and includes no wasted text. The secondary sentence adds useful usage context without bloating the definition.

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 one-parameter read tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it names the resource, lookup key, and return scope. The main omission is any explicit relationship to the sibling get_template tool.

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 coverage is 100%, and the only parameter, id, is already documented in the schema as the template record's id. The description repeats this without adding format or constraint details beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: fetch one letX LaTeX template record by its id. It is clear enough to distinguish search-style tools from a direct id lookup, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_template 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?

It states a clear usage context: use it when the full record of a template found by search is needed. It also frames itself as a minimal interface for clients that expect one, though it gives no explicit when-not guidance or alternative such as get_template.

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