Email: templates show

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing what each mode actually returns: raw content with placeholders preserved vs full email HTML wrapped in the project's shell filled with sample data. No auth/rate-limit notes, hence not a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the mode distinction. Dense and largely waste-free, though the CLI-style flag reference is slightly off-register for an MCP parameter.

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?

A read-only, two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema; the description compensates by describing the return shape in both modes. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing, though it could note the required template_type explicitly.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description still adds meaning: it explains the consequence of the rendered flag (full HTML in the project shell with sample data) versus the default (editable placeholders). The '--rendered' notation is CLI-flavored and does not exactly match the boolean parameter name, which slightly muddies the mapping.

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 (Show) and resource (a template's subject + content), and explicitly splits the two operating modes (raw content vs rendered HTML). It also names the sibling workflow target (email_templates_update), so an agent can place it without opening siblings.

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?

Clear mode selection guidance: the default output with intact {{ placeholders }} is 'what to edit', while rendered gives the full HTML with sample data. It also adds a workflow ordering hint ('Read it before email_templates_update'). No explicit exclusions against other siblings (e.g. email_templates_list, email_preview), so not a 5.

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