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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: header/footer entries are GLOBAL BLOCKS whose words change in every template placing them, a stale rule surfaces as `problem`, and save-template is destructive-replacement so this read is a prerequisite to a safe update. It doesn't cover auth or rate-limit behavior, but for a read tool this is well above the bar.

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 outcome ('One template in full:') followed by dense field enumeration, and the critical update warning is last, where it lands well. However the core is one long em-dash-chained run-on that requires re-reading to parse.

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 the return payload needn't be explained; the description instead spends its budget on the non-obvious parts — global-block coupling, the `problem` marker, and the read-before-write dependency. Complete enough for a single-parameter read tool, with little left that would cause a mis-call.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Template id from list-templates'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about templateId syntax or sourcing, which is the expected baseline-3 outcome when the schema does the lifting.

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 and resource ('One template in full') and enumerates the payload shape: parts, contentWidth, contentSource, beforeSlot/afterSlot, header/footer, archiveContexts. This is immediately distinguishable from fabrement-list-templates and from fabrement-get-synced-pattern, which it explicitly names for a different concern.

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 a concrete trigger — 'Read it before an UPDATE that touches the slot or a zone' — with the reason ('save-template replaces what you pass'), and routes the reader to get-synced-pattern/save-synced-pattern for editing global block content. No explicit when-not or mention of list-templates for browsing, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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