get_received_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate that this is a GET operation and therefore read-only, but it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or behavior when the id is not found.

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 a single efficient sentence with the verb, resource, and endpoint all front-loaded. There is no wasted text, and the inclusion of the GET path adds useful precision without bloat.

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 one-parameter single-resource fetch, the description is mostly adequate, but with no output schema and no annotations, it does not clarify what fields the returned email object contains or how it differs from get_received_email_raw. Some additional context would improve completeness.

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 description reinforces that the id selects the received email. It does not add meaningful format or syntax details beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('single received email by id'), and includes the exact HTTP endpoint. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_received_emails and get_received_email_raw.

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 gives no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_received_email_raw or list_received_emails. The 'by id' phrasing implies a usage condition, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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