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

Even with readOnlyHint=true already present, the description adds meaningful behavior: it explains that a block template additionally returns blocksTemplate/styleDefs, that omitting versionId reads the released version, and that reading a draft version requires the template:write scope. These are concrete behavioral details beyond the annotations and schema.

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 with the main purpose and structured in a logical workflow, but it repeats the entire content in German and English, roughly doubling its length. The bilingual duplication is redundant for tool invocation and makes the description longer than necessary.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, which it does: subject/content template, merge fields, approval default, and the block-template extras. It also covers versioning, auth scope, and the surrounding workflow, so an agent has enough context to call 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?

The description clarifies versionId semantics (default released version, draft requires template:write) and implies templateId refers to a single curated/standard template via template_list. However, with schema description coverage at only 33%, the required templateId parameter is not explicitly explained and the reasoning parameter is left entirely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 and resource: it returns a single template with subject/content template, merge fields, and approval default, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by noting the extra blocksTemplate/styleDefs for block templates. This goes well beyond the tool name and title.

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 explicitly frames template_get as the start of the crafting loop, lists the follow-up sequence (letter_preview, template_save, template_preview, template_release), names template_list for finding curated templates, and gives the next-step alternative template_apply_with_merge_fields. It also states the versionId + template:write scope condition, which is clear usage guidance.

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