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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the sample JSON is what fills in at generation time, and the full layout body is only fetched with include_body and may be truncated because it is very large.

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?

Front-loads the return payload before the include_body caveat, and every clause carries information. The trailing 'GET /get-template' is mildly redundant but harmless for orientation.

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 no output schema, the description steps in to say what is returned (name plus sample JSON) and what include_body conditionally adds, which is enough for correct invocation. It does not cover error behavior or pagination, but neither is relevant for a single-resource fetch.

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 the schema already documents template_id, version, and include_body in detail (including the 40000-char cutoff and version source). The description's mention of include_body and the sample-data payload adds only marginal meaning on top of that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clear verb (get) and resource (one template), and specifies exactly what comes back: the name and the sample JSON placeholder data. The phrase 'One template' distinguishes it from the sibling craftmypdf_list_templates without the agent opening either schema.

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?

Usage is implied (fetch a single template's detail), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives such as craftmypdf_list_templates for discovery or craftmypdf_list_template_versions for version history. The include_body note hints at a tradeoff but never frames it as a decision rule.

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