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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds significant value by stating 'Read-only and spends no quota' and 'Requires a Kamy API key with the templates:read scope; without a key, returns dashboard setup instructions'. This provides authentication and quota behavior beyond what annotations offer. The description does not contradict any annotations.

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 a single focused paragraph of three sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and fields. Each subsequent sentence earns its place: the second explains how to prepare and when to use alternatives, and the third covers prerequisites and constraints. No wasted words.

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 the low complexity (2 required parameters, no enums, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage context, prerequisites (API key scope), constraints (read-only, no quota cost), and directs to sibling tools for related tasks. The annotations already cover safety, so no additional behavioral details are needed.

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% with descriptions for parameters, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces that templateId accepts a UUID or slug and that version comes from list_template_versions, but does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides. No value is added for enum or nested objects as none exist.

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 'Fetch one template version snapshot in full' and enumerates the fields included (html, css, schema, createdBy, createdAt). It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool `list_template_versions` by directing the agent to use that first to find the version number, and from `rollback_template` by stating this tool inspects content while the other makes a version live.

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 provides explicit when-to-use advice: 'Use this to inspect what a released version actually contained, or to recover content a later draft edit overwrote'. It also gives explicit when-not: 'it changes nothing on its own, so pair it with rollback_template when you want that version live again'. This clearly differentiates the tool's role from the sibling `rollback_template`.

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