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 covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: the default set of sections returned when include is omitted, and the selective-fetch cost model that avoids pulling the whole template. This is meaningful beyond structured fields.

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 action, then structured 'Use this tool when' bullets and a sentence on include behavior. Slightly verbose, with the include/defaults idea repeated across two paragraphs, but every sentence remains useful and there is no filler.

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 return-value enumeration is not required in the description. Within that, the description fully covers default vs. selective section retrieval and the identity fields always returned, leaving nothing an agent needs before calling the tool.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the schema itself explains that include selects exact sections and lists the defaults. The description largely reiterates the schema's include semantics rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (gets information) and resource (a template), and elaborates that the response covers identity, parties, teams, description and signing settings. This sufficiently distinguishes it from siblings like get-template-html (content) and list-templates (enumerate). An agent can identify its role 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance with a concrete example ('when you want to create a document from the template and need to know which parties, dynamic fields... are available'), which is genuinely helpful context. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives (e.g. vs get-template-html), so it falls short of a 5.

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