get_template

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is structurally covered. The description adds that response content includes HTML/text and that this is an audit/preview tool, but it does not disclose response shape or default truncation behavior beyond what the schema's include_html description already states.

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?

Two concise sentences with the core action and resource front-loaded. The purpose statement ('Use for audit/preview') earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant detail.

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 read-by-ID tool with full schema coverage, the description plus annotations covers the essentials. With no output schema, it could be slightly more explicit about the returned object shape or the default truncated HTML behavior, though the schema's include_html default partially fills that gap.

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 account, template_id, and include_html are already well documented. The description's mention of HTML/text content loosely aligns with include_html, but it adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a specific action ('Fetch'), a resource ('email template'), and retrieval scope ('by ID'), and notes that HTML/text content is included. It is clearly distinct from listing tools like list_templates, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling alternatives, so it misses the top score.

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?

'Use for audit/preview' gives a clear intended context for when this tool is appropriate. It provides explicit usage direction but does not mention exclusions or point to alternative tools, such as list_templates or get_campaign_detail.

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