Get Template

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that by specifying what the response includes ('HTML content, variables, and publish status'). This discloses the output shape even without an output schema, but it stops short of discussing error handling or other edge cases.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and wastes no words. The example URL is redundant with the schema but harmless. Every part earns its place.

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 getter with one parameter and read-only annotation, the description is complete. It explains the input format and explicitly names the return contents, compensating for the lack of an output schema. No critical information 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 description for the single 'id' parameter already covers the allowed formats (ID, alias, or dashboard URL) and even the same example. The tool description essentially restates this, adding no extra semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, this is 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('email template'), and clearly states the input can be an ID, alias, or dashboard URL. This distinguishes it from list/update/delete operations among the sibling tools, making the tool's function immediately obvious.

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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool: to retrieve a single template's full details by ID/alias/URL. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like list-templates, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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