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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing what the call yields — the template key and a sense of what each template looks like — which matters since there is no 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?

Two sentences, zero waste, with the resource and scope front-loaded and the usage cue following. Every clause earns its place.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource, the trigger, and the shape of the return. Only minor gaps remain, such as whether the catalog is paginated or fixed.

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 single `kind` parameter has an enum with its own description, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's mention of 'paywalls or onboarding flows' loosely reinforces the two enum values but adds no format or selection detail beyond them.

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 first sentence names the specific resource (built-in one-click starter templates) and its two scopes (paywalls, onboarding flows) plus what is returned (template key and appearance). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_paywall_doc or create_paywall_draft, though the phrasing is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement.

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 gives a concrete trigger: 'Use this when asked to add a paywall so you pick a real template key rather than inventing one.' That routes the agent correctly and explains the motivation. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or exclusions, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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