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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by explaining exactly what data is returned (type, language, page size, HTML content) and the scope (for confirmations, invoices, estimates, etc.), which is behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but for a simple read operation this is sufficient.

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 short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by a precise retrieval hint. Every word earns its place, and the structure helps an agent parse the information quickly.

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 single-parameter read tool with strong annotations and a clear schema, the description covers the purpose, the key data returned, and how to obtain the required ID. It does not describe the exact output format (e.g., JSON structure), but since there is no output schema and the listed fields are intuitive, this is a minor gap. Error conditions are also not mentioned, but the read-only, idempotent nature minimizes risk.

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 description already fully explains the documentTemplateId parameter (integer, the template's ID, found via query). The description reinforces this by mentioning query, but does not add any new semantics about the parameter. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not further enrich parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the verb (Return), the resource (document template), and the specific content (type, language, page size, HTML content). It also differentiates from query by indicating this returns the full template rather than a list. The purpose is unmistakable and distinct from siblings like query or delete.

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 provides practical usage guidance by instructing the agent to first list templates with query(entity='documentTemplate') to obtain the ID. This establishes a clear workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., 'use this to get full details, not query'), though the intent is obvious. Slight gap in explicit alternative routing.

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