emails_fetch_template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination behavior, response format, or default scoping). It does not contradict the annotations, so a 3 is appropriate as the annotations carry most of the burden.

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?

The description is extremely concise (three words), which is efficient but under-specified. It front-loads the purpose but omits any parameter or usage details. While every word earns a place, the lack of structural context (e.g., mentioning available filters) makes it less helpful than it could be.

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 tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and a 9% schema description coverage, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how parameters affect results, default behaviors, or any necessary context for correct invocation. The tool is effectively opaque to an agent.

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 only 9% (only locationId has a description), and the description mentions none of the parameters. The other 10 parameters (name, limit, offset, search, archived, originId, parentId, sortByDate, templatesOnly, builderVersion) have no semantic explanation in either the schema or the description. This is a critical gap for a tool with 11 parameters.

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 'Fetch email templates' clearly states the action (fetch) and the resource (email templates), and distinguishes from siblings like emails_create_template, emails_delete_template, and emails_update_template. It does not specify scope or filters, so it loses one point for not being more 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like locations_get_all_or_email_sms_templates, which also fetches templates. No mention of prerequisites, scope (e.g., location-level), or when to prefer this over other fetch methods. The description is a bare statement with no usage context.

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