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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value by naming the underlying GET /producttemplates endpoint and by allowing the agent to infer the response shape, which matters because there is no output schema.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs the return payload preview and the endpoint into one line, with 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by listing the major response fields and the endpoint. The only real gap is that it does not say what to do if the SKU lacks templates or whether the call validates the SKU.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema documents it at 100% coverage including the format example and a pointer to gooten_list_product_variants. The description adds nothing beyond 'for a SKU', so the schema does all the work.

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 the resource precisely (print templates for a SKU) and enumerates what it contains: image count, pixel sizes/DPI, print spaces, layer coordinates, and preview assets. That is specific enough to separate it from the sibling listers (list_product_variants, list_print_ready_variants), though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance in the description. Usage is only implied by the payload contents ('how many images are needed'), which suggests it precedes asset preparation, and by the SKU reference pointing at gooten_list_product_variants.

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