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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one non-obvious behavioral fact — that the response includes the current version's YAML rather than metadata only — but says nothing about auth requirements or behavior for a missing/stale UUID.

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 the resource, the lookup key, and the payload, and zero filler. 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?

An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be explained, and annotations cover safety. The description still usefully discloses that the YAML of the current version is included, which is the one thing an agent might otherwise guess wrong; only error/missing-UUID behavior is omitted.

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?

There is a single path parameter whose meaning is largely conveyed by the schema's format/pattern, and the description's 'by UUID' adds only the identifier type. With one parameter and schema coverage reported at 0%, a baseline 3 is appropriate; nothing beyond 'UUID' is clarified.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus specific resource ('custom template'), with the lookup key ('by UUID') and the returned payload ('YAML of its current version') stated. This distinguishes it in practice from get-template and list-custom-templates, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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 phrase 'by UUID' implicitly signals that a UUID must already be known (e.g., obtained from list-custom-templates), which is a weak usage cue. There is no explicit when-to-use versus get-template or when-not-to-use guidance.

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