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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the return is a 'valid starter example' (i.e., usable as-is rather than a partial sketch), but says nothing about format, size, or whether the example is minimal or complete — context that would matter when handing it to a downstream spec edit.

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?

A single tight sentence with the deliverable front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though on the sparse side for a tool with five siblings and an unlabeled enum.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is adequate on the surface but omits two things an agent needs: what the example actually contains (spec object vs. prose) and how it relates to get_template/get_video_schema. With no output schema, the return shape falls entirely on the description and goes unexplained.

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 0% and the enum values (qa-ad, proof-walkthrough, finance-brief, etc.) carry no per-value explanation anywhere. The description's phrase 'one template family' does clarify that templateId selects a family rather than an instance, which is real added meaning over the raw enum, but the individual families remain undocumented.

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: returns a valid starter example for one template family. It is clearly not a schema/exercise tool like get_video_schema or scaffold_video_spec, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with the closest siblings (get_template, get_video_schema), so the boundary is inferable 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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative named, despite five sibling tools (get_template, get_video_schema, get_carousel_schema, scaffold_video_spec, prepare_video_template) that overlap conceptually. The agent must guess whether to call this before or instead of a schema tool.

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