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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered. The description adds useful behavioral nuance beyond the schema: only published templates are accessible, free templates expose a project id while paid ones deliberately do not, and the reason is that the schema is the product. This goes beyond the structural return data.

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 filler. It front-loads the core purpose and return contents, then adds the free-versus-paid distinction, which is valuable and directly affects how an agent interprets the response. Every sentence 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 one required parameter, a fully documented schema, an output schema, and readOnly annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains the return payload and the crucial free/paid behavioral difference. It could have explicitly pointed to browse_templates as the way to discover slugs, but that is a minor omission given the available sibling tools.

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 the slug parameter is already documented as the listing slug as it appears in the public URL. The description reinforces that the slug identifies a template, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('one published template'), and a selector ('by its slug'), then enumerates exactly what is returned: description, table names, foreign-key graph, and counts. It also clarifies a meaningful distinction between free and paid templates, which helps separate this tool from browse_templates and template_categories.

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 clearly implies the tool is for retrieving a single published template when you already know its slug, and it excludes unpublished templates by using 'published'. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like browse_templates for listing or template_categories for category browsing, so the when-not-to-use guidance is only implicit rather than explicit.

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