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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond that: 'The server renders nothing; you edit and export the file' — a workflow constraint an agent would otherwise assume wrong. No mention of size limits or auth, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, no filler, and the return contents are front-loaded before the usage note. Every clause conveys information the agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain what comes back — and it does, naming the HTML file, export script, and edit rules. Combined with the 'server renders nothing' caveat, an agent has everything needed to call and use the result.

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%, with slug documented as coming from list_posts and lang as an optional enum with English default. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the schema carries the full burden and baseline 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 ('Returns one post template as working instructions') and enumerates the payload: the full HTML file, an export script, and the change rules. This clearly separates it from list_posts and from the get_component/get_recipe/get_style siblings that fetch other asset types.

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?

'Use it after list_posts' gives an explicit prerequisite and sequencing hint. It doesn't state when-not-to-use or name alternative retrievers (get_component, get_recipe), but the resource-specific naming plus the list->get pattern makes the routing obvious.

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