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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds essentially nothing behavioral beyond restating the REST path 'GET /template/{id}' — no note on error behavior for unknown ids, zone defaulting, or caching.

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 fragments with no filler; the field inventory is front-loaded and the endpoint path trails as a compact reference. Slightly terse but every token carries information.

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 listing the returned fields (name, family, version, default user, size, boot mode, checksum, zones) usefully compensates by telling the agent what it will receive. Missing only where the tool fits relative to list_templates for a fully complete picture.

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 description coverage is 100%: both 'id' (UUID pattern) and 'zone' (enum with login-default note) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning, 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?

The description names a specific verb+resource (get a single template) and enumerates the fields returned, making it easy to distinguish from the sibling exoscale_list_templates by scope ('one template'). It does not call out that sibling by name, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 only implied: the agent must infer it should call this when it has a template id and needs full details rather than a list. No explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative (e.g. list_templates) is given.

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