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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: the template is 'reviewed', and it discloses the return content and the anti-hallucination constraint on missing facts.

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 compact sentences, no filler, and the deliverable is front-loaded before the workflow instruction. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Purpose, returned content, parameter source, and the operating constraint (ask, don't invent) are all present, and an output schema exists so return-value documentation is unnecessary. An agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage; the schema already documents template_id, its length bounds, and that it comes from list_drafting_templates. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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 ('Return one reviewed template') and enumerates the payload ('its structure, the facts that must be collected first, and the standard wording for its Pakistani forum'). The singular 'one' implicitly separates it from the sibling list_drafting_templates, which returns many.

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 operational context: ask the user for missing facts, never invent them, then fill the template. It also implies the template_id originates from list_drafting_templates via the schema. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings like get_statute_section or search_judgments, and offers no exclusions.

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