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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the useful distinction that the body is parsed (text and HTML) rather than raw, but says nothing about behavior when a body is absent or in a non-text format.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler and no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple single-parameter read, though it leaves room for a short disambiguating clause.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return value, and it does so only loosely ('text and HTML body'). It does not say whether both parts are always present or how they are keyed in the response, which matters for a tool whose whole purpose is returning two body formats.

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% and the single 'id' parameter is documented as an email ID with the em_xxx format. The description adds no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

Uses a specific verb ('Return') and states exactly what resource is returned: the parsed text and HTML body of an email. However, it makes no attempt to distinguish itself from the numerous email-related siblings (get-email, get-email-raw, get-email-meta, get-email-attachments), which an agent must disambiguate by name alone.

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 statement of when to use this instead of get-email-raw or get-email, which is the critical decision for an agent facing four sibling readers of the same email resource. Usage must be inferred entirely from the word 'parsed' versus sibling names.

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