email_templates_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. "Get" implies a safe read, but there is no disclosure of auth requirements beyond the key/endpoint params, no rate-limit or failure notes, and no hint at what "details" are returned.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than being genuinely informative.

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 single-item read with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It leaves unclear what "details" comprise and offers no routing guidance, but nothing critical to correct invocation is missing.

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% (apiKey, restEndpoint, email_template_id all documented), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing beyond that baseline, so a 3 is warranted.

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") and resource ("details for a specific email template"), and the word "specific" plus singular template signals retrieval of one item. This implicitly contrasts with sibling email_templates_list, though it never names it explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus email_templates_list, email_templates_update, or content_blocks_info. Usage is only inferable from the name and the word "specific".

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