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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing further — no mention of what a returned template contains, whether it is module-specific scaffolding vs. a file download, or any error/authorization behavior. No contradiction with the annotations, but no value added either.

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?

It is short, but the single substantive sentence is duplicated word-for-word, and the operation ID is filler from the agent's perspective. Brevity here comes from under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 tool with a nested object parameter and zero schema description coverage, the description should define the module vocabulary and the role of `query`, and ideally clarify the return. None of that is present; the only recourse offered is to call describe_operation separately, which adds a round trip the description could have avoided.

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% and there are 2 parameters (required `module` string plus a freeform `query` object). The description only echoes that `module` is a path segment via the `:module` placeholder; it never says what valid module identifiers look like (a `list_modules` sibling exists) or what `query` is for.

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?

The description is the raw endpoint path repeated verbatim ("GET /api/import/template/:module") plus an operation ID. It implies fetching an import template for a module, but that only comes from parsing the path string, not from any explanatory prose, and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like get_import_available_fields_by_module or get_rent_import_template.

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 routing is given. The only actionable hint is the pointer that "describe_operation provides native request schemas," which tells the agent how to discover the request shape, not when this tool is the right choice.

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