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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: every template is schema-valid and solves as-is, and the returned JSON is identical to the resource payload. It does not, however, discuss size or pagination, which is minor for a single-record read.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, but the dated parenthetical about the 2026-09-11 acceptance run is anecdotal filler, and the port-convention example list is long. A reader has to wade through several clauses to reach the 'copy, edit, validate' guidance.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description correctly takes on the burden of describing the return ('a complete design document — the same JSON the resource serves'), including its validity and solvability. It is complete enough to call correctly, with only minor gaps around payload size.

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 parameter is already documented in the schema as 'A template id from list_templates.' The prose adds no format, syntax, or resolution details beyond that, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (one shipped template) and immediately scopes it as a complete design document equivalent to the ea://templates/{id} resource. This clearly distinguishes it from list_templates (enumeration) and get_design (user designs).

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?

Explicitly gives the condition that selects this tool over the alternative resource ('for clients that do not expose resources'), and routes the follow-up workflow: 'Copy it, edit it, then validate_design.' The templateId schema entry also points to list_templates as the discovery step.

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