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

The description explains the exact return structure (definition body as JSON string plus checksum) and the optional version behavior. Combined with annotations indicating read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, the tool's behavior is fully transparent without any contradictions.

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 concise, using two sentences to convey the purpose, key parameters, and return format without unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and front-loads the primary action.

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?

The description is complete for a read operation, covering what is returned, how parameters affect the result, and the optional version default. The presence of an output schema supplements the description, but the description itself is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's context and usage.

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 covers 100% of parameters, and the description text further clarifies semantics: 'by slug or id' for slug/template_id and 'Omit version to get the latest version' for version. This adds meaning beyond field names and numeric constraints.

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 tool reads back the full stored definition of an api template version, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_api_template (which likely retrieves the template itself) and get_api_template_definition_schema (which retrieves the schema). It specifies the key parameters (slug or id) and the behavior of omitting version.

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 usage context by explaining the return format (JSON string for diffing/patching) and that omitting version fetches the latest. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when to prefer this over get_api_template or get_api_template_definition_schema, which could be inferred but is not explicit.

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