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

Annotations already mark this as readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful caveat—raw prompts are excluded from the returned detail—but says nothing about response shape, permissions, or how request_id affects results. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Eight words, one sentence, no filler; the key qualifier is front-loaded. This is appropriately brief for a simple read operation.

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?

Despite low tool complexity and helpful annotations, the 0% schema coverage and absent output schema leave request_id semantics and the exact shape of 'detail' undocumented. An agent can call it for the required enum, but cannot predict what will be returned or how to use request_id reliably.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, but it mentions neither email_type nor request_id. The email_type enum is self-explanatory, but request_id's role is completely unexplained, and 'without raw prompts' does not clarify parameter meanings.

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 operation ('Read') and resource ('candidate email template detail') and adds the qualifier 'without raw prompts,' which distinguishes it from preview-style siblings. This is more specific than the title alone and gives an agent a clear sense of the tool's scope.

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 is for reading template detail excluding raw prompts, but it never names an alternative or states when to prefer this over list/preview/customization siblings. There is a clear contextual signal, but no explicit when/when-not routing.

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