Get template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing that the response contains the full body/subject and by flagging the cost consideration of fetching bodies individually versus listing. It doesn't cover pagination or size limits, but for a single-record read that is minor.

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?

Four short labeled sections, each front-loading its point (purpose, exclusion, return, trigger). Every sentence earns its place and the critical exclusion is stated early.

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?

With one simple required param, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies everything needed: what it returns, the alternative, and when to reach for it. Nothing essential 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?

The schema has a single parameter ('id', Template UUID) at 100% description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the identifier format beyond what the schema states, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (fetch) plus the resource (one template) and enumerates what is included: HTML body and subject. It explicitly names plunk_list_templates as the alternative it is not, so an agent can differentiate without opening 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?

The 'Not for' and 'Use when' sections give explicit when/when-not guidance and name the competing sibling (plunk_list_templates) with the condition that selects it. Nothing is left to inference.

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