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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds useful context that it returns one map entry without history, but does not describe permissions, errors, or return shape.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, beginning with the read-only nature and the core operation. Every clause adds specific meaning without redundancy.

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?

For a simple read tool with annotations covering safety, the description gives enough context to identify the template and key and to understand that history is excluded. Minor gaps remain around return value structure and id/uuid selection rules, but the core invocation path is clear.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and does partially: it names template_id and template_uuid as ways to identify the template and gives an example key value. However, it does not fully define seliee_template_key or clarify whether exactly one of template_id/template_uuid is required.

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: read one entry of a template's seliee_templates map. It distinguishes the scope from related operations by noting it excludes history and is the read counterpart of edit_template_key.

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?

Clearly identifies the operation as the read counterpart of edit_template_key, which helps route between reading and editing. It does not explicitly compare against get_template or get_template_variables, but the one-entry focus gives sufficient context.

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