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 fully covered. The description adds the template-type distinction (standard vs uploaded PDF), which is mild extra context, and the output schema covers return values, so no further disclosure is required.

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 zero filler; the lookup key and the covered resource variants come first with nothing wasted.

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 an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations cover safety, so the core need is met. The remaining gap is sibling disambiguation from get-custom-template and get-custom-term, which the description only gestures at.

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?

Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is reported as 0% even though the id field carries a generic label. The description's 'by UUID' adds a small amount of meaning over the schema's 'The UUID of the resource', but nothing about nesting or format beyond what the schema's uuid format already enforces.

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 (template) scoped to lookup by UUID, and clarifies it covers 'standard or uploaded PDF template'. It hints at a sibling distinction (custom templates handled elsewhere) but never names get-custom-template, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 parenthetical implies two template varieties exist but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or naming of the alternative tool (get-custom-template) for custom templates. The agent is left to infer routing from the name alone.

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