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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe non-mutating read, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the underlying API route (GET /template/{template_id}) and the shape of the response, but says nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior for missing ids.

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 tight sentences, with the functional purpose front-loaded and the API route appended as supporting detail. Nothing is padded, though the raw endpoint is marginally redundant with the tool name.

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 one-parameter, read-only fetch with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what identity key is required and what data comes back. Remaining gaps (error handling on unknown ids) are minor for a tool this simple.

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 single parameter's description ('The id of the template to retrieve') is already complete. The description's 'by id' adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 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 single template') and enumerates the payload ('fields, roles, and metadata'), so the agent knows exactly what the call returns. The word 'single' implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_templates, but no sibling is named explicitly, which keeps this short of a 5.

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 only implied: the tool takes a template_id and fetches one template, which suggests it is the detail-view counterpart to dropbox_sign_list_templates. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over listing templates or sending with a template.

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