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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description adds non-obvious environmental behavior — Foundry strips <style> tags, forcing inline styles — which genuinely changes how an agent must use the result. It does not mention failure modes for invalid IDs or the size/shape of the returned HTML.

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 tight sentences with the core action and the critical constraint front-loaded, and zero filler. Every clause carries actionable information.

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 no output schema, the description must characterize the return value, and it does: full HTML, a style reference, not literal text to copy. It stops short of describing structure, size, or what a template contains, which would help an agent plan around the result.

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 templateId parameter is documented as coming from handout-template-list, so the schema does the work. The description adds meaning about the nature of the returned content rather than about the parameter itself, 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 and resource ("Get the full HTML of a handout template") and immediately characterizes the returned artifact as a style reference rather than copyable text, which distinguishes it from handout-template-list. An agent knows exactly what this returns without opening the schema.

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 concrete downstream guidance: write a unique variation, use inline style attributes, save via journal-page-create with type "text". It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement or a direct contrast with handout-template-list, but the templateId schema reference to handout-template-list implies the ordering.

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