get_component

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond that: it discloses the shape of the returned payload and, notably, that slots are 'placeholders the model should fill', which tells the agent the result is a template to be completed rather than finished output.

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 the payload contents front-loaded and the invocation guidance second. The return-field enumeration is long but each item is informative given there is no output schema; nothing reads as filler, though the single sentence does run dense.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so comprehensively, plus it supplies the prerequisite call sequence. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke this read-only, one-parameter tool correctly.

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%: the single 'name' parameter is documented and constrained by a six-value enum, and the schema itself already instructs 'Get the list from list_components first.' The description adds no naming conventions, aliases, or format guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb ('Return the full record') and resource ('a single component') and enumerates exactly what the record contains: title, description, narrative body, HTML pattern, slots, VML/responsive flags, code examples. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list_components, which returns a collection rather than one full record.

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?

Explicitly sequences the call ('Use after list_components') and gives the motivating condition for calling it ('to fetch the actual HTML pattern to paste into an email'). It routes the agent correctly relative to its main sibling, though it states no when-not conditions and does not mention the other siblings (get_rule, get_playbook_rules, list_categories).

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