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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds value by specifying the exact return content and mandating a follow-up call, which is behavioral context beyond annotations. No contradictions exist.

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 with no redundant phrasing. The purpose and return list are front-loaded, and the critical next-step instruction follows directly. Every word earns its place.

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?

With only one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return payload and the mandatory next step, which is sufficient for correct invocation. It doesn't mention error conditions or response formatting, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity and the read-only annotations.

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 fully documents the single parameter templateId with a clear description ('Unique identifier of the template'), giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it relies on the schema as the baseline.

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 verb and resource ('Get details for a specific template') and enumerates the returned fields (name, number of signees, and each signee's signature settings). This distinguishes it from siblings like list_templates and get_template_fields, which have different scopes.

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 usage guidance: 'Always call get_template_fields immediately after this — before collecting signer details or creating the document.' This tells the agent when and in what sequence to use this tool, effectively routing it to the correct sibling.

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