Retrieve Template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's 'Read operation.' merely restates readOnlyHint, and the base URL line is construction detail rather than behavioral context (no error/not-found behavior, no auth or rate-limit notes).

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?

Short and front-loaded: the purpose sentence comes first and the remaining lines are brief. The HTML-anchor link and the redundant 'Read operation.' line add noise but do not bury the core statement.

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, fully-annotated single-resource read tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the definition provides enough to call it correctly. The only real omission is what a not-found or private-account lookup does, which is minor at this complexity.

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 'id' and 'account' are already documented with local detail. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning or format beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 case.

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 ('Retrieve a template by template id'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from the create/update/delete/list template siblings. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the single-resource-by-ID framing is clear enough for selection.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no contrast with list_templates (which returns many) or get_render, and no stated prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the fact that an ID is required.

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