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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description's job is to add payload context — and it does, disclosing that code templates return codeHtml and codeCss strings. It does not say whether variants, brand context, or metadata are bundled into the "full record", which keeps it short of a 5.

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, front-loaded with the return behavior and followed by the code-template special case. No filler, no restatement of the name or annotation-derived safety facts.

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 does explain the headline return content. But it leaves an agent without the origin of templateId and without any sense of record scope (e.g., whether variants and brand context are included), which is a real gap for a "full record" fetch.

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%: templateId is a bare required string with no documentation in the schema. The description never compensates — it says nothing about what a templateId looks like or that it comes from list_templates, so the only documented parameter is undocumented everywhere.

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?

"Returns the full template record" states a specific verb and resource, and the codeHtml/codeCss clause signals the payload depth that separates it from list_templates. It never names the sibling explicitly, so the list-vs-detail distinction is implied rather than stated.

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 "use these as the starting point when iterating on a design with Claude" gives a genuine usage scenario for code templates. However, there is no guidance on when to fetch a template versus get_template_variant or create_template_variant, nor any prerequisite stated for obtaining a templateId.

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