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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses authorization scoping, safe projection, render readiness, lack of personalization, and unavailability of legacy versions. This is useful behavioral context, though it does not describe output shape, which is covered by the output schema.

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 short and front-loads the main purpose before adding constraints. The semicolon-heavy wording is somewhat dense, but every sentence adds relevant context.

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 two-parameter get operation, the description omits the central parameter semantics and does not clearly differentiate it from sibling lookup/list tools. The annotations and output schema cover safety and return values, but the input-side context remains incomplete.

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?

There are two required parameters, id and version_id, with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention either parameter or explain their UUID format or relationship. The schema's UUID pattern is the only parameter guidance.

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 says it discovers authorized published template metadata, but it never explicitly states that it retrieves a single template version by id and version_id. It is distinguishable from template_versions_list only implicitly, so the core operation is vague.

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?

It gives availability constraints, such as only frozen flat-video-v1 versions being render-ready and legacy versions being unavailable, but it does not say when to use this tool rather than templates_get or template_versions_list.

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