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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explicitly states 'Read-only and spends no quota', clarifies that it returns a frozen snapshot (a behavioral trait not inferable from readOnlyHint alone), and documents authentication requirements ('Kamy API key with templates:read scope') and the error path ('returns dashboard setup instructions' when missing a key). A 5 would require additional details like pagination limits or rate-limit behavior.

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 packs a lot of useful information into three sentences without wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core action and returned fields. The second provides usage guidance and pairing with sibling tools. The third covers parameter semantics and auth requirements. Loses one point because the sentence is slightly dense (multiple semicolon-separated ideas in the second sentence), making parsing slightly harder.

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 low complexity (2 required params, no nested objects), 100% schema coverage, no output schema (so description correctly doesn't explain return values), and comprehensive annotations, the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, when to use, what not to do, how to pair with siblings, parameter acquisition workflow, authentication, quota impact, and error behavior. There are no gaps given the tool's scope.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of 'version' relative to list_template_versions (the step-by-step workflow for obtaining it), and clarifies that templateId accepts 'UUID or slug'. This extra workflow context raises the score above baseline. A 5 would require explicit mention that both parameters together uniquely identify the snapshot, or more format constraints.

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 explicitly uses the verb 'Fetch' with the resource 'one template version snapshot in full', followed by a precise list of fields (html, css, schema, createdBy, createdAt). It clearly distinguishes the snapshot nature ('exactly as it was frozen') from other template operations, and its purpose is unambiguous even among 50+ sibling tools.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance ('list_template_versions first to find the number'), specific use cases ('inspect what a released version actually contained', 'recover content a later draft edit overwrote'), and crucially tells the agent what to use next if a mutation is needed ('pair it with rollback_template when you want that version live again'). It also states what the tool does not do ('changes nothing on its own').

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