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

With annotations providing readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description only needs to add extra behavioral context. It mentions the return includes subject and body, which is useful. However, it doesn't add details like error behavior for non-existent IDs, or any special fields. Given annotations cover safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words. It states the core action and the key output (subject and body) efficiently. It is appropriately concise for a simple getter 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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), and annotations cover read-only nature. The description is sufficient for basic invocation. However, it could have mentioned that the returned template might have other fields beyond subject and body, or noted common use cases. Sibling tools like 'hires_prepare_template_placeholders' suggest templates have placeholders, but this isn't mentioned. Still, for a basic getter, it's reasonably complete.

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 has one parameter 'id' at 0% description coverage. The description doesn't explain what 'id' refers to (template ID) or that it is required. Since there is only one parameter, the name 'id' is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description could have clarified it is the email template ID. Baseline 3 is fair.

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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'email template', and specifies it returns subject and body. It distinguishes from siblings like 'hires_list_email_templates' (which lists templates) and 'hires_create_email_template' (which creates). However, it doesn't explicitly mention that it's a single-template retrieval by ID, which is obvious from the name but not fully articulated.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that for a list of templates you should use 'hires_list_email_templates', or for creating a template use 'hires_create_email_template'. The description assumes the agent knows to use this for getting a single template by ID, but does not state that explicitly.

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