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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the visibility boundary (org + globally public), the plan gating requirement (PRO+), and the fact that the snapshot JSON contains a tasks blueprint and defaultDuration. It doesn't say what happens when the template is missing or inaccessible.

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?

Three telegraphic clauses, each carrying distinct information, with the payload description front-loaded and the constraints trailing. Zero filler.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry return-value meaning — and it does, naming the snapshot JSON contents. Combined with the visibility and plan-gate notes, an agent has enough to call this correctly, though error/absence behavior is unstated.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies which template IDs are resolvable via the visibility statement but adds no format, prefix, or sourcing guidance for templateId itself. Adequate, not enriched.

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 the resource and depth of retrieval precisely: "Full template detail incl. snapshot JSON (tasks blueprint + defaultDuration)." This implicitly distinguishes it from list_templates, which returns summaries, and names the concrete payload it adds. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+object, but the intent is unmistakable.

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?

Gives useful operational context — visibility scope ("this org's templates plus globally-public ones") and a plan gate ("templates (PRO+)") — but never explicitly says when to use this versus list_templates or instantiate_template. Usage is implied from the word "Full" rather than stated.

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