Get text template

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description doesn't need to re-explain safety. It adds useful context about monetary values in cents and default field behavior, but the claim 'returning all fields by default' contradicts the schema's 'Omit for a compact default set', undermining trust in the disclosed behavior.

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 short and front-loaded, but the first sentence contains an inaccurate statement about default fields. A sentence that misleads does not earn its place, so despite efficient structure, it loses points for not being reliable.

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?

The description covers the key action, a necessary alternative, and the cents convention. However, it lacks error behavior (e.g., what happens if ID not found) and the default-field contradiction leaves the return format ambiguous. Given no output schema, more completeness would be expected.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal value (e.g., 'Pass fields to narrow the response') but also misstates that the default returns all fields, which conflicts with the schema's compact default set. This misleading extra information worsens parameter understanding rather than improving it.

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 clearly states 'Fetch one text template by its numeric easybill ID' with a specific verb, resource, and identifier. It distinguishes from the sibling list tool by recommending easybill_list_text_templates when only a name/number is known, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use easybill_list_text_templates first if you only know a name or number', providing a clear when-to-use alternative. It also instructs to 'Pass fields to narrow the response', giving direct parameter usage guidance.

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