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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description's "Read-only" is redundant. What the description does add beyond annotations is the disclosed error mode ("unknown template id") tied to a precondition, which helps the agent anticipate failure and recover via list_templates.

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 payload of what is returned, then sequencing, then caveats. The only waste is the standalone "Read-only" sentence, which merely repeats readOnlyHint=true, and the long enumeration is dense but each item is informative.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly (sheets, tables, column roles, examples, dropdowns, settings and result cells). Combined with the sequencing guidance and error condition, an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already stating "Template id from list_templates, for example gym-memberships." The description restates the same constraint (id must come from list_templates) without adding format, casing, or example detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ("Returns the structure of one template") and then enumerates what that structure contains: sheets, record tables with header/first/last row and capacity, input vs formula columns, examples, dropdowns, settings cells, result cells. This is far more precise than any sibling name suggests, so an agent can distinguish it from list_templates and calculate 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?

Explicitly prescribes a position in the workflow: "Call it after list_templates and before calculate," and explains the reason (use exact sheet/column names, fill only input columns). It also names the failure condition (id not from list_templates), which effectively excludes passing arbitrary ids.

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