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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral context: the returned body is an executable skill, non-owner reads carry an unverified-template safety banner, and the latest live version is fetched by default. These details inform the agent about execution semantics and safety expectations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core function, then adds essential behavioral details in short, focused sentences. No filler is present, and each sentence contributes meaningful information.

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?

The description is complete for a read-only retrieval tool: it covers identifier formats, version behavior, access permissions, safety banner behavior, and the runbook execution semantics. The presence of an output schema means return-value details do not need to be in the description.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters fully, including accepted identifier forms and version pinning, so the description does not need to compensate. The description adds minor useful context like 'latest live version by default' and 'anyone can read,' but it largely restates schema information.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieve a public template's runbook' and clarifies the purpose: 'to run on the user's behalf.' It also distinguishes itself by noting the returned body is a skill to execute, not merely display, which differentiates it from related tools like get_template_file.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to fetch a public template's runbook for the user. It explains access ('Anyone can read') and default behavior ('Latest live version by default'), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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