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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context beyond annotations: it requires the templates:manage scope, maps to a specific HTTP GET endpoint, and states that the same PassFast HTTP API, billing, and rate limits apply. It also explicitly warns not to invent other paths, which is a behavioral guardrail. It doesn't describe pagination or error behavior, but for a single-resource GET with strong annotations, this is solid.

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: the first line states the core action, then the return value, then scope, then mapping, then constraints. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple GET tool.

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-resource GET with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it returns, the required scope, the exact HTTP mapping, and the constraint not to invent other paths. It doesn't describe the response shape, but the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation make that a minor gap. The annotations cover safety, and the schema covers parameters, so the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('Template ID' and 'Override X-App-Id for this call. Defaults to the MCP connection header.'). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Per the calibration baseline, when schema coverage is high, a 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('a single template'), and explicitly says it returns full details. It also names the OpenAPI operationId and HTTP path, which disambiguates it from sibling tools like listTemplates or updateTemplate. This is a clear, specific statement of what the tool does.

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 description provides clear context: it maps to GET /manage-templates/{id}, requires the templates:manage scope, and notes that it shares the same API, billing, and rate limits. It doesn't explicitly say 'use this instead of listTemplates when you need a single template's full details,' but the scope and path make the usage context clear. It also warns against inventing other paths, which is a useful usage constraint.

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