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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: field names are language-independent, and addressing can be via slug or id+lang. However, it does not disclose potential error behavior, return format, or side effects (though likely read-only), leaving some ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value: the first states what the tool returns, the second explains addressing and language behavior.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return structure or error handling more explicitly. It covers the core purpose and parameter semantics but omits details about the response format, possible failure modes, or when includeBlankPdf would be relevant, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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 cross-parameter logic by stating 'Adressierbar per slug ODER per id+lang', clarifying the OR relationship between parameters, which the schema's individual descriptions do not explicitly convey. This adds beyond what the schema provides, justifying a 4.

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 clearly states the resource and action: 'Details + Feld-Schema einer Vorlage' retrieves template details and field schema. It specifies what is included (fields, legal space) and how to address it (slug or id+lang), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_templates (searching) and fill_template (filling).

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 implies usage (you need a slug or id+lang), but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus search_templates or fill_template. It provides addressing prerequisites but lacks explicit comparisons or exclusions, so some guidance is present but not fully developed.

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