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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It adds meaningful behavior beyond the schema: the fallback to the default when no custom template is set, the Proof account requirement, and the explicit warning that start_login does NOT open this tool. It does not describe error behavior or output format, but for a simple getter this is a strong disclosure set.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main purpose is stated in the first sentence, followed by the access caveat. The authentication note is wordy but earns its place because it prevents a common failure mode. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema is 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 two-parameter getter with no output schema, the description covers the key operating details: what the tool returns, how it selects templates, and what authentication state is required. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly, though it omits explicit contrast with get_default_templates and any description of error cases.

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 coverage is 100%, with both channel and message_type already documented and channel constrained via enum. The description reuses these parameter concepts but adds no new semantic detail beyond re-stating them in prose, so the schema carries the weight and the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Get a specific template by channel and message type.' It clearly identifies the two selection dimensions and sets expectations around custom-vs-default behavior. It does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools like get_default_templates, preview_template, or render_template, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implies the tool should be used when you need a concrete template for a known channel and message type, and it adds useful operational guidance about authentication and the start_login flow. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over related siblings such as get_default_templates or list_templates, nor does it give 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.