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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds extra context by stating the required permission (email_templates:read) and linking to the API reference. It also confirms the template is 'linked to the authenticated workspace,' which provides operational context beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences long, with the primary action stated first. The second sentence provides the permission and API reference, both useful for invocation. No redundant words or filler are present.

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 read tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the core behavior, workspace scope, permission, and API reference. The annotations already handle safety attributes, and the output schema covers return values. Thus the description is complete for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 input schema covers 100% of the parameter documentation; template_id is described as 'The email template identifier.' The description does not add any further semantic detail about the parameter itself. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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 tool returns a reusable email template linked to the authenticated workspace. It uses a specific verb ('Returns') and identifies the resource ('email template'), distinguishing it from list or preview operations. The scope is also clear, noting the workspace association.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for retrieving a single email template by ID, and notes the required permission. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like email_templates_list or email_templates_preview, nor does it state when not to use this tool. Thus it has clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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