get_email_template

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the return payload surface (subject, body_html, translations, referenced fields). However, it never states that the operation is read-only, what happens when the id does not exist, or whether translations are returned inline for all locales.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and the resource, with the returned fields appended as useful detail. Nothing is padded, though the trailing phrase about the record `fields` it reads is slightly cryptic without elaboration.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description must explain the response shape, and it partially does by naming the returned keys. For a simple id-based read tool that is close to adequate, but error behavior and the extent of translation data remain unstated.

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 0%, so the description would have to compensate for the single email_template_id parameter, and it does not — it never says whether the id is a numeric surrogate key versus a name or slug, or where to obtain it. The lone integer parameter is self-evident enough from its name that this is not fatal.

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 ('Get one') and resource ('email template') and enumerates what comes back (subject, body_html, translations, referenced record fields). That is clearly distinct from list_email_templates, but the description never acknowledges the look-alike sibling get_template, which an agent could easily confuse with this one.

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?

Usage is only implied: single-record retrieval by id, as opposed to the list/preview siblings. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no guidance on preferring preview_email or get_translations for narrower needs, and no preconditions mentioned.

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