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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuine behavioral detail beyond them: the return varies sharply by template type, with Google Docs yielding a live link and PDFs yielding only name and field count. That return-shape disclosure is valuable given 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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by format-specific behavior; little waste. Slightly long sentences, but each carries actionable information.

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?

With no output schema, the description accepts the burden of describing returns and does so for all three template types. The remaining gap is how the caller acquires a valid template_id, which matters for a single-required-param tool.

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 0% for the single required template_id, and the description never explains the identifier's form or where to obtain it (list_templates is not referenced). With low coverage the description is expected to compensate and it does not.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (saved markdown template) and even branches the purpose by template format: text for markdown, link for Google Doc, name+field count for PDF. An agent can distinguish this read tool from list_templates, update_template and delete_template directly from the description.

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?

Gives concrete downstream contexts — edit names/dates/terms before sending via document.markdown, or before update_template — and effectively warns that Google Doc/PDF templates are sent as-is rather than edited. No explicit negative case naming a sibling to avoid, so it stops short of a 5.

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