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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral nuance: templates read back without owner/tags/notes and 'belonging to nobody'; 'categories' and 'blockTypeCategoryMap' can disagree because one counts drafts and other only published items; and certain categories can be missing per blockType until publish. These are real behaviors an agent could not infer from annotations alone, and no contradiction exists.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the main purpose and field list, then moves to exclusions, then template behavior, then the nuanced categories-vs-blockTypeCategoryMap discrepancy. Every sentence carries information needed for correct use, and the most important scoping statements appear first.

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-param, no-output-schema tool, the description is exceptionally complete: it lists the return fields, states what isn't included and where to find it, covers template-id special cases, and explains the subtle draft-vs-published category discrepancy. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its response.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter-level semantics beyond referring to the id and acceptable sources for it, but the single integer parameter is simple enough that this is not a meaningful gap.

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: 'Retrieves one question bank by id' and enumerates the returned fields (title, riddleType, tags, notes, categories/blockTypes, unpublished-changes status). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling question_bank_get_items by stating the items are not included here, so a selecting agent can tell the two apart immediately.

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?

Provides concrete usage context: it should be called on a built-in template id from question_bank_list(scope: "templates") to inspect before duplicating, and it routes item retrieval away by naming question_bank_get_items as the tool that contains the items. This is clear when-and-when-not guidance, not vague.

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