Get ZeptoMail template

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds a workflow rule ('before updating or deleting') and indicates the return is a 'complete template', but does not describe error conditions, auth, or pagination. This is adequate given annotation coverage, but not richly transparent.

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 no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and the workflow requirement is stated immediately after. Every word earns its place.

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 simple read-only fetch with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is returned ('complete template'), the key inputs, and when to call it. It does not enumerate the template fields or failure modes, but that level of detail is not essential for invoking it 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?

The schema already gives a thorough description for agentKey, but templateKey is only a bare string. The description adds that both keys must be 'exact' and that agentKey comes from zeptomail_list_agents, but it does not say where templateKey originates (e.g., zeptomail_list_templates). With 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves a meaningful gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('one complete template'), and the selection criteria ('from one explicit Agent by exact template key'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like list_templates or find_templates by emphasizing exactness and a single full template, and from update/delete by explicitly positioning it as a prerequisite before those operations.

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 directive 'Always call this before updating or deleting' provides explicit when-to-use guidance and places this tool in a workflow. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives for searching/listing, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this over mutation or search tools.

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