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

Annotations already cover the safe-read profile (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: templates read back without owner/tags/notes and 'belong to nobody,' and the categories vs blockTypeCategoryMap fields can disagree because one counts DRAFT items and the other only PUBLISHED ones. This is exactly the kind of semantic detail annotations cannot 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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the item-exclusion note, then the template caveat, then the categories/blockType semantics. Dense but each clause carries distinct information. The final categories paragraph is long but genuinely clarifying, so it mostly earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing the returned fields and warning about the two category-derived fields disagreeing. It is complete enough for an agent to call and interpret the result correctly.

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 100% for the single parameter, and the schema already states the id comes from question_bank_create/list or a template. The description restates the same provenance, so it adds little beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('Retrieves one question bank by id') and enumerates the fields returned. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling question_bank_get_items ('The items themselves are question_bank_get_items, not included here'), so an agent can separate the two without opening schemas.

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 clear context: it can be run against a built-in template id from question_bank_list(scope: "templates") to inspect contents 'before duplicating.' It references question_bank_manage for the publish flow. It stops short of a full when/when-not routing table, but the primary usage scenario is stated.

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