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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description's restatement of 'Read-only' earns little. What it does add is genuinely useful: the experimental status and the specific failure mode (errors for some accounts and image templates), which annotations cannot express.

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 tight sentences: the returned resource is front-loaded, the operational caveat follows, and the endpoint is appended. No 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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden itself and does so by naming HTML body, CSS and print settings, plus the failure condition. For a single-parameter read tool this is complete.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents template_id's pattern and shows where to obtain it. The description adds no parameter-level 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 and resource ('One PDF template's HTML body, CSS and print settings') and pins the exact endpoint (GET /v2/get-template), so the agent knows it retrieves a single template's source rather than a list. This cleanly separates it from the sibling apitemplate_list_templates.

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 context for use plus an important caveat: the endpoint is experimental and can return an error for some accounts or for image templates. It does not explicitly name a fallback sibling, but the warning tells the agent when to expect failure.

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