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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context the annotations do not: the source comes back with the caller's values already substituted in, and the response also carries permissions and the required address flag mask — important for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary return value, and no filler. The first sentence is somewhat run-on, stacking three return items into one clause, but each item carries information the agent needs.

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 no output schema, the description must describe returns and it does — source text, permissions, and flag mask. Combined with 100% schema coverage on the two parameters and read-only annotations, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by stating that settings are expressed in the same units list_templates displays (%, minutes, buys, HYPE). That unit convention is not in the schema and directly prevents wrong value formatting for the nested values object.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource: it returns the full Solidity source of a hook template, plus that template's permissions and deployment address flag mask. The return payload is named explicitly, which separates it from list_templates (enumeration) and from pool/state readers in the sibling set.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent infers this is the tool for reading a single template's source because it needs a template_id from list_templates. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative, though the pointer to list_templates as the id/unit source gives partial routing guidance.

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