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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed world, so safety behavior is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral rule ("Never infer dimensions or unsupported BRep export"), but says nothing about what happens with an unknown or malformed template_id, nor about response size or truncation.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a single caveat; nothing is padded. The enumerated field list is slightly dense but each item carries information the agent needs.

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?

A read-only single-parameter lookup with full annotation coverage and an output schema, so return-value description is not needed and correctly omitted. The remaining gap is where template_id comes from and how failures surface, which is modest given the tool's simplicity.

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% for the single parameter, so the burden falls on the description, and it only says "one template's" without defining the identifier's format or telling the agent where to obtain a valid template_id. The regex and length bounds live in the schema, but the sourcing and semantics of the ID are documented nowhere.

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 one template's parameters, defaults, units, output names and exact STEP capability") and enumerates the retrieved fields, so the agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not distinguish itself from similar-looking siblings such as get_design_operation_schema or get_request_schema, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 context of use is implied: call this when you need a template's authoritative parameter set before operating on it. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives statement and no exclusion, so the agent must infer the routing decision itself.

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