Get Template

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

Annotations already declare this readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds a genuine behavioral fact beyond those annotations and beyond the schema: the returned payload includes the template's HTML, which is the only clue about response content given there is no output schema.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with the payload detail placed where it is most useful. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool with annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete, and the HTML hint partially compensates for the absence of an output schema. Missing only error/not-found behavior and any statement about payload size for templates with large HTML.

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% and the single id parameter is fully documented (uuid with a pattern), so the description need not restate it. "one email template" only weakly echoes what the schema already makes clear, so the 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?

The description pairs a specific verb ("Get") with a specific resource ("one email template") and clarifies scope with "one," distinguishing it from list-templates. It does not, however, contrast itself with the sibling get-gallery-template, so the agent must infer that this operates on stored user templates rather than gallery templates.

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 single-id retrieval shape makes the intent obvious, but there is no explicit statement of when to reach for this over list-templates or get-gallery-template, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid template id.

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