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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond those: no authentication required, the exact list of returned fields, and the critical limitation that the gallery slug cannot be used for PDF generation. Mentioning that the template is not yet in the workspace prevents a likely misuse. This goes well beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and return payload, the second gives the parameter source, and the third delivers the critical workflow warning. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the important caveat is clearly emphasized. There is no filler or redundant repetition.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it enumerates all returned fields, states that no authentication is needed, identifies how to obtain the slug, and explains the subsequent workflow with copy_gallery_template and designId. An agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly and interpret its results.

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?

The schema already describes the slug parameter fully, noting it is the identifier contained in search_gallery_templates results. The description repeats this source instruction, adding no new semantic meaning beyond the schema. With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline 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 states a specific verb (取得), the resource (template details from the public gallery), and the required identifier (slug), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling search_gallery_templates by explaining that the slug is derived from search results. The title 'Get Public Gallery Template Details' reinforces this read-only intent.

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 explicitly tells the agent to obtain the slug from search_gallery_templates, establishing the correct preceding tool. It also clearly warns that gallery templates are not yet in the workspace and that the slug alone cannot generate a PDF, routing the agent to copy_gallery_template and then to get_design_parameters/generate_pdf_sync. This is strong when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance with named alternatives.

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