get_template

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it discloses the key selection behavior ('Returns the custom template if set, otherwise the default') as well as the access prerequisite. It does not state read-only semantics or error/return-shape details, but those are less critical for a getter with this much disclosure.

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 compact, front-loads the main purpose in the first sentence, and places the access note in a clearly separated ACCESS block. Every sentence earns its place; there is no repetition or filler.

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 two-parameter getter with no output schema or annotations, the description covers selection criteria, fallback behavior, and the required auth setup, which is enough for a correct call. A minor gap is that the return structure/format of the template is not described, but this does not impede tool selection or invocation.

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%, so the schema already documents channel and message_type, including valid channel enums and examples for message_type. The description adds the custom/default fallback context but no new parameter-level format or syntax details, matching the baseline of 3.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Get a specific template by channel and message type,' which makes the tool's function unambiguous. The caveat about custom-vs-default fallback also distinguishes it from list/get_default_* siblings without needing to inspect their schemas.

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?

It gives concrete usage context by warning that a Proof account is required, that PROOF_API_KEY must be set, and that start_login does NOT open this tool—thus excluding an otherwise plausible auth path. It does not explicitly name alternatives like list_templates or get_default_templates, so it misses the top bar of explicit when/when-not guidance.

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