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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: the conditional presence of "preset.paletteValues", the deliberate absence of paletteValues on built-in palettes (with the reference to fall back on), the empty-"build" + warning case, and the size warning that omittedDefaults maps measure 85-90% of the response.

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 key purpose is front-loaded and each sentence carries real information, but the prose is dense with nested parentheticals and repeated cross-references to sibling tools, so it is longer than strictly necessary while remaining on-topic.

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 takes on the burden of return values and does so explicitly, enumerating the returned fields and explaining the build/preset/warnings edge cases. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds rationale the schema lacks: why id ties back to templateId lineage, and that omittedDefaults is "to read, never to resend" and should be true only to learn what THIS template left at its default. This meaningfully guides correct parameter choice.

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?

"Reads one template, by default INCLUDING its build configuration" names a specific verb, resource, and default scope, and explicitly distinguishes the result from what riddle_get returns and riddle_builder_create accepts. An agent can tell it apart from riddle_template_use (copies whole) and riddle_template_list without opening any schema.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not: adapt via riddle_builder_create with this id as "templateId", or if "Not changing anything? riddle_template_use is one call and copies the template whole." It even routes the no-build-config case ("use riddle_template_use for those"). Alternatives and conditions are fully named.

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