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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description goes well beyond them: it explains that block ids are position-based (blk-0, blk-1, ...), that ids stay stable only while order is unchanged, and that positions shift after insert/delete/move. This id-lifecycle detail is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs and annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and return, then the when-to-use, then the id-stability caveat. Every sentence carries new information (block types, alternative, id semantics, re-read rule) with no repetition or filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned block types and describing the id format and how it behaves across reads/mutations. For a single-param read tool, nothing an agent needs to call and consume it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (template_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents it as the UUID of the template. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, 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 (parse) and resource (a template's HTML → block model) and the exact return (ordered list of blocks), enumerating all 15 block types. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like meisa_get_template and meisa_update_template_block without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('to inspect a template's structure before editing a single block') and names the alternative it replaces ('instead of rewriting the whole HTML'). It further prescribes re-reading after insert/delete/move, giving a concrete workflow condition.

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