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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly signals a read-only lookup by using 'Get' and 'Returns', and it discloses the categories of information the caller will receive. It does not mention error behavior for invalid template IDs or authorization requirements, but for a pure getter this is reasonably transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a scannable bullet list of return contents. Every sentence and bullet adds value without redundancy.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one required parameter, a fully documented schema, and an output schema. The description sufficiently conveys what the tool does and what details it returns, so an agent has enough information to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%; the template_id parameter is already documented in the schema as 'The template ID to get details for.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get detailed information about a specific template') and enumerates concrete returned details: variables, categories, tags, and scoring dimensions. It clearly differentiates itself from siblings like get_templates (listing) and execute_template (execution) by emphasizing a single template's metadata.

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 phrase 'specific template' implies this is a point-lookup tool for template metadata, which gives useful context for selecting it over get_templates or execute_template. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it, when not to use it, or name alternatives.

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