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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it shines: it explains templates read back without owner/tags/notes, and it thoroughly discloses the subtle discrepancy between 'categories' (DRAFT items) and 'blockTypeCategoryMap' (PUBLISHED items). This goes well beyond a generic 'get by id' and prevents misinterpretation of returned data.

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 longer than average but earns its length: purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, then scope, template usage, and a critical data-discrepancy warning. No filler sentences; each clause adds needed nuance, though some might argue the categories nuance is verbose.

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?

The tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and moderate behavioral complexity (template behavior, draft vs. published category slicing). The description covers the return fields, the template use case, and the exact gotcha about category disagreement, referencing the relevant sibling tools for follow-up actions. An agent can confidently invoke this tool and interpret its results.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for the lone parameter by clarifying that the id can be a built-in template id from question_bank_list, and explains how template ids behave differently (no owner, tags/notes omitted). This enriches the schema's basic integer type and description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieves') and explicitly lists the resource ('one question bank by id') plus the exact fields returned (title, riddleType, tags, notes, categories/blockTypes, unpublished changes status). It also distinguishes itself from question_bank_get_items by stating items are not included, which differentiates it clearly from the closest sibling.

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?

The description gives explicit usage context: it works on built-in template ids from question_bank_list(scope: "templates") to inspect content before duplicating. It also names the sibling for getting items and points to question_bank_manage for publishing-related reconciliation, effectively telling when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives.

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