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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the response includes a download-permission check for the caller, and files are deliberately excluded from the payload. That scope limit is exactly the kind of context an agent could otherwise assume wrong.

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, no filler, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the negative scope ('Never returns the template's files') placed second where it reads as a qualifier rather than the lead. Every clause 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the two things the response carries: template details and the caller's download permission. It stays silent on what 'details' includes and on error behavior for an unknown slug, but for a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage this is close to sufficient.

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% and the slug parameter is documented in the schema with a format example ('settle'), so the description needs to add nothing. It does not, and adds nothing, which is the correct baseline of 3.

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 specific verb and resource ('One template's details') plus the extra access-check payload, so an agent knows this is the singular fetch by slug as opposed to the list-oriented search_templates. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with check_access, which also concerns download permission, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only says what the tool returns; it never states when to reach for it instead of search_templates or check_access, nor any prerequisite beyond supplying a slug. Usage is inferable from the name but nothing in the text routes the agent among alternatives.

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