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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's real contribution is stating that the response includes details plus HTML content, which is valuable since there is no output schema. It does not address size of the HTML payload, whether missing templates error or return empty, or behavior when neither identifier is supplied.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the identifier options come after the outcome, which is the right ordering. It is arguably too terse for a tool with two optional parameters, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, a modest reference tool would benefit from a sentence on the return shape or on what happens when neither name nor template_id is provided (both are optional, required count is 0). The description covers what is returned at a high level but leaves that ambiguity unresolved.

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%, and the schema already documents that name is exact and that it is an alternative to template_id, so the description repeats rather than extends. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get a template') and adds the distinguishing payload ('details and HTML content'), which tells an agent this returns the template body rather than a list summary. It does not explicitly contrast with list_templates or get_campaign, leaving sibling differentiation implicit.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance: nothing says to call list_templates first to discover an ID, or that this is the read counterpart to create_template/update_template. The only routing hint is the implicit 'by template_id or by exact name', which is parameter guidance rather than usage context.

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