get_email_template

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does declare 'Read-only' plus the returned fields (name, subject, body/html_body, email_type, sender settings). It does not cover auth requirements or error behavior (e.g. invalid ID), which is the main remaining gap.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by behavior and then the ID-discovery hint. Three short, purposeful lines with essentially no waste.

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 an output schema already describing return values, the definition covers purpose, safety, and ID acquisition. It is essentially complete, with only minor omissions like error/not-found behavior.

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 single parameter is already documented in the schema. The description's guidance ('get from list_email_templates') largely duplicates the schema description, so it adds little beyond the baseline.

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 and resource ('Get an email template by ID') and implicitly separates itself from the sibling list_email_templates by emphasizing lookup by ID. An agent can distinguish this single-fetch tool from the listing tool without opening either schema.

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 tells the agent how to obtain the required ID ('list_email_templates → match by name'), which is effectively a routing instruction to the sibling. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use clause, but the discovery workflow is clearly spelled out.

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