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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's one added fact — that the response includes roles and field placements — is genuinely useful content context, but it says nothing about failure behavior for unknown IDs or scope of account_id.

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?

A single tight sentence with zero filler that front-loads the verb and resource. Nothing can be trimmed without losing information.

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?

For a simple, read-only, two-parameter lookup whose safety semantics are already in annotations, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient. The only shortfall is that no output schema exists and the return shape is summarized in half a clause, leaving the exact structure of roles/field placements 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both template_id and account_id documented inline including the default-if-omitted behavior for account_id. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Get one saved template") and adds what the payload contains ("roles and field placements"), which sharpens it beyond the bare title. It implicitly contrasts with assinafy_list_templates via "one," but never names or explicitly distinguishes itself from that sibling.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative (assinafy_list_templates for enumeration vs this tool for fetching one by ID). The agent must infer that a template_id is required and that enumeration lives elsewhere.

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