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 goes further by disclosing the return contents (body, revision, fields) in the absence of an output schema. Crucially it surfaces the optimistic-concurrency convention — passing this revision to update_template — which is real behavioral knowledge not present in any structured field. It stops short of stating error behavior for an unknown template name/id.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the actionable next step and the pointer to the format tool. No filler and no repetition of the schema or annotations.

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 read-only single-resource getter with one documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers return shape, the revision handoff to update_template, and where to learn about the body format. Missing only minor items such as not-found behavior for a bad name/id.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains that it accepts either the id or the name as produced by list_templates. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter (no format, casing, or ambiguity resolution between id and name), 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?

The description names the resource ('one template') and enumerates the returned parts (editor document body, revision, fields it reads), which is more specific than the title 'Get template'. It separates itself from list_templates implicitly by saying 'One template' and explicitly points to get_template_format for body format. The verb is elided ('One template: ...'), costing a bit of crispness but not comprehension.

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?

It gives a concrete workflow: read this, change the body, send it to update_template with this revision, and it routes the agent to get_template_format for body semantics. It does not explicitly say when to prefer list_templates or when this tool is unnecessary, but the surrounding context is clear enough to act on.

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