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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world operation. The description adds valuable return-content context by stating that the response includes the template's folder structure, which is not visible in the annotations or an output schema.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the lookup key, and the return scope efficiently.

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, single-parameter retrieval tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete: it says what is fetched and that folder structure is included. Minor gaps remain around error behavior (e.g., not-found handling) and pagination, but those are not critical here.

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% — the single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema as a UUID Template ID. The description's phrase 'by ID' adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Get a project document folder template') and clarifies the lookup key ('by ID'), which distinguishes it from the list_project_document_folder_templates sibling. It does not explicitly name that sibling or mention update/delete variants, but the purpose is 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?

Usage is implied by 'by ID' — the agent can infer that an ID must be known and that a list operation should be used when it is not. However, the description states no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool routing.

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