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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the content shape (source plus sample data), but says nothing about payload size, template provenance, or failure modes for a bad id — and the existence of an output schema further reduces what the description needs to carry.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the return content first and the two intended uses after; no filler or restated title verbosity.

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?

With an output schema present and all parameters documented, the description only needs to convey purpose and next step, which it does. Coverage of edge cases (nonexistent id, template size) is the only remaining gap.

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 100% and the single 'id' parameter already documents its origin ('from list_templates'), so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate for a one-parameter tool whose schema does the work.

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 gallery template's source and its sample data'), which is far more informative than the name alone and separates it from read-style siblings like get_document. It implies but does not explicitly state the split versus list_templates (which merely enumerates ids).

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?

Gives concrete downstream contexts — use the result with render_template to fill in a person's values, or adapt it into your own template — which tells the agent why and when to fetch a template. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or a 'do not use when' condition.

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