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

The annotation already carries readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful mode-dependent behavior: draft retrieval is mandatory pre-publication, while published is the default. This goes beyond the annotation, though it stops short of describing response contents or pagination.

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 sentences with zero filler: the core purpose is front-loaded, and the draft/published caveat follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place.

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 read-only tool with fully documented parameters, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly: required IDs, version semantics, and the safety profile from annotations. There is no output schema, so the return shape is unspecified, but the name and 'template' wording make the response type reasonably predictable.

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%, and the schema already provides strong guidance, including exact character-for-character copying instructions for both IDs and the enumerated version values. The description adds one layer of meaning beyond the schema: the rule that version=draft is required before publishing, clarifying when each version value 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?

The description names a specific verb (get), a specific resource (journey-scoped notification template), and the lookup key (notification ID). The qualifier 'journey-scoped' differentiates it from sibling getters such as get_notification and get_journey_template_content, and the version semantics are stated directly.

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 gives concrete usage context: pass version=draft when the template has not yet been published, and rely on the published default otherwise. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when-not-to-use, so an agent must infer the boundary against get_notification and get_journey_template_content.

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