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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the return payload is the exact authored body as a JSON string plus a checksum, and it explains how the body is meant to be reused. Return-shape detail is somewhat redundant with the output schema, keeping it at 4.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by return detail and the version default. Every clause earns its place 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 an output schema present and full param coverage, the description supplies enough: what is returned (definition body + checksum) and the version default. Only the sibling differentiation against get_api_template is left implicit.

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 coverage is 100% so baseline would be 3, but the description reinforces the slug/id duality and the version-omission semantics ('Omit version to get the latest version'), matching the schema's '0 for latest' note. It adds minor interpretive value over the schema rather than fully new syntax.

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 ('Read back') and resource ('full stored definition of an api template version'), and scopes it by slug or id. This is distinguishable from get_api_template (metadata-level) by the 'version definition' framing, though it never explicitly names that sibling as the alternative.

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 clear usage context — omit version for latest, and the definition-as-JSON-string is intended for diffing or patching and resubmitting as a new version, which implicitly routes the agent to create_api_template_version next. No explicit when-not or named alternative, so not a 5.

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