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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by saying the response includes the full structure and an example, and maps the call to GET /api/v2/text-templates/{id}.

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 front-loaded and compact, with the core retrieval scope stated first. The "[read-only]" tag duplicates annotation information, but the endpoint wrapper adds useful provenance without bloat.

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 single-resource read operation with annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the essential return context: full structure plus an example. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it could mention error behavior for missing ids.

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 for the lone required id parameter. It partially does by naming the resource and endpoint pattern, implying id identifies one text template, but it does not specify format, source, or constraints for the id.

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 clearly states it retrieves exactly one text template with its full structure and example. The word "One" distinguishes it from list_text_templates and the other template mutation siblings, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.

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 single-resource wording implies you use this when you need one template rather than a list, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named sibling comparison. Usage is inferable rather than prescribed.

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