Get product template details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant context: it is public and requires no authentication, and it enumerates what the response contains (variants, customizable areas, size guide, images). That auth disclosure is meaningful behavioral information the annotations do not carry.

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 short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by auth note and return contents. Some leading whitespace/indentation is wasted but the content itself is tight and non-redundant.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth requirements, and a summary of returned fields, which is enough for correct invocation. It could be improved with explicit sibling routing (vs. get_product / search_product_templates), which is the only material gap.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the notable caveat that 'account' is a profile label and not an authorization proof. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, so the 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?

The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Get detailed information about a specific product template'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list/search tools like list_product_templates and search_product_templates. It stops short of naming those siblings, but the singular 'specific product template' framing signals the single-item retrieval role.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for fetching one template by ID, but there is no explicit statement of when to use it over list_product_templates, search_product_templates, or get_product. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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