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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds the caveat that this is a live endpoint not in the public API specification, which is useful stability information, but it does not disclose behavior for missing IDs, return format, or authentication requirements.

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 short sentences: the first states the core action, the second adds an important availability caveat. There is no filler, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It identifies the return as full template details and notes the endpoint's non-public status, though it does not enumerate the template fields returned.

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 100%, so template_id and account_id are already fully documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond referencing 'full template details' and 'get-by-ID', so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get full template details') and clarifies it is a live get-by-ID endpoint, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling list_templates. The operation and target resource are unambiguous.

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 implies the tool is for fetching a single template by ID, but it does not explicitly compare it to alternatives like list_templates or provide when-to-use/not-use guidance. The note about not being in the public API specification is availability context, not usage direction.

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