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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The only added behavior is the includeTests toggle, which restates the schema rather than disclosing anything new like error behavior for a missing ID or cross-workspace access rules.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the one notable option. Slight redundancy between the 'Get a Specific Template' title prefix and the following sentence keeps it from a 5.

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-by-ID tool, annotations cover safety, the output schema covers return values, and the schema fully documents parameters. Only minor gaps remain, such as what happens when the ID is unknown or not in the active workspace.

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%, so all three parameters (id, includeTests, workspace_id) are already documented with their defaults. The description only echoes the includeTests behavior and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Retrieve details of a specific email template'), which is unambiguous on its own. It does not explicitly name get_all_templates as the alternative, so the single-vs-list distinction is only implied by 'specific'.

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?

Usage is implied: fetch one template by ID rather than a list. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a workspace or permissions), and no routing to the sibling get_all_templates or update_template.

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