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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely useful behavior: the call does not load the document, it caps the result at 20 pending items, and further items require saving a batch — real pagination semantics an agent cannot infer from 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the return/pagination contract; no filler. The opening phrase 'Reprendre le contrôle' is slightly idiomatic and mildly obscures the verb, but the rest is dense and efficient.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates well by enumerating the returned fields (version, pageId, next sections, components to review) plus the 20-item cap and pagination mechanic. It is slightly thin on what 'en attente' (pending) means and on error behavior for an invalid templateId, but an agent has enough to call 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 0% for the single required 'templateId' parameter, with only maxLength/minLength constraints documented. The description implies the ID refers to a template ('d'un modèle') but never states format, provenance, or how to obtain a valid templateId (e.g. from list_managed_templates or list_site_templates), so it only partially compensates.

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+resource: inspect a template's review state ('version, pageId, prochaines sections et composants à vérifier') and it explicitly contrasts with loading the document ('sans charger son document'). That implicitly separates it from document-loading siblings such as get_site_template_document, but no sibling is named, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Gives a clear situational context (review a template without pulling its full document) and a workflow rule ('enregistrer un lot pour obtenir les suivants'), which points an agent toward the batch-recording sibling to advance pagination. It stops short of naming that tool or stating when this tool is the wrong choice.

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