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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's added value is the bounded scope of the output — names only ('in names') plus example-row counts, and only for published templates — which tells the agent this is a lightweight catalog view, not a full definition dump. It says nothing about permissions or size limits on large templates.

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 sentences with no filler: the first front-loads exactly what is returned, the second states the use case. Every clause earns its place, and the enumeration of returned entities is the most decision-relevant information in the definition.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is close to complete: it scopes the input source (published templates), characterizes output granularity, and names the downstream action (install). Minor gap: it never notes what happens with an invalid or unpublished slug, though the output schema likely covers the response shape.

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% and the single 'slug' parameter is already documented as coming from template.browse. The description adds no constraint, format, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource outcome ('what a published template builds, in names') and enumerates the returned entities: sheets with fields and views, dashboards, pages, workflows, and example-row counts. An agent can distinguish it from template.browse (listing) and template.install (applying) without opening the schema, though the verb 'preview' itself is only implied rather than stated.

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?

The second sentence gives an explicit when-to-use rule: 'describe a template before installing it,' which positions it in the browse → preview → install sequence. It does not name sibling tools or state when-not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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