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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety and mutability profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as error handling or response format, but given the simplicity of the operation and strong annotation coverage, a mid-range score is appropriate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that omits unnecessary elaboration. Every word contributes to specifying the action and target, making it highly efficient.

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 get-by-ID operation with one parameter, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is nearly sufficient. It does not explain the return value, but the tool name and purpose strongly imply the template object is returned. An explicit mention of the return format would elevate it to a 5, but the current level is adequate for this trivial operation.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'templateId', including type, format, pattern, and a description. The description's 'by ID' adds no meaning beyond what the schema already specifies, so the baseline score of 3 is warranted.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('signal template') with a clear identifier ('by ID'). It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like signal_templates-list and signal_templates-update, which focus on listing or modifying templates.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description simply states what it does, without mentioning scenarios where a list or search would be preferable, or any preconditions such as existence checks. The implied use case (retrieve a specific template by ID) is clear from the name, but no exclusions or alternative pointers are provided.

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