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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description needs less behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context by specifying the source of the slug and listing the payload fields, but it does not describe error behavior or the exact structure of the response beyond field names.

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 one focused sentence that front-loads the primary action, identifies the parameter source, and lists the key return fields. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 single-parameter, read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it specifies the identifier, its origin, and the returned content. No critical operational detail is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The input schema already documents the single slug parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only that the slug identifies a LaTeX template and comes from search_templates, which slightly reinforces but does not substantially expand parameter semantics.

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: 'Get one LaTeX template's full details by slug'. It also enumerates the exact fields returned and distinguishes itself from the sibling list tool search_templates by requiring a slug produced by that 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 phrase 'from search_templates' gives clear context that this tool should be used after searching for templates and with a slug obtained from search_templates. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the intended workflow is easy to infer and no alternative detail-fetching tool competes with it.

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