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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the tool returns a contract bundle, doubles as a prerequisite for create_from_template, and accepts three different identifier forms. This is useful behavioral detail without contradicting the annotations.

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 long but every sentence carries distinct information: the prerequisite relationship, the contract contents, and the identifier formats with real examples. It front-loads the most important operational fact ('Read this before create_from_template') and is structured for an agent to understand the tool's full value at a glance.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return content, and it does so thoroughly: looks, knobs JSON Schema, column roles, region-code convention with lookup URL, dataType expectations, and an example call. It also covers the input forms and provides concrete usage examples, making it complete for a single-parameter retrieval tool.

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%, so the schema already documents that id can be a template id, slug, or page address. The description adds value by giving concrete examples such as 'sweden/municipalities, us/texas/counties, london/wards' and explaining that knowing the place lets you bypass list_templates. This goes beyond the schema without being redundant.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns the template with `contract`' and enumerates exactly what that contract contains. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by saying users can 'skip list_templates when you know the place' and by explicitly being a prerequisite to create_from_template.

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?

It gives explicit usage guidance: 'Read this before create_from_template' establishes when it should be used relative to that sibling, and 'skip list_templates when you know the place' clarifies when not to use the discovery tool. The description names the alternative and the condition that selects this tool.

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