get_received_email_raw

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the return format ('raw message as text') and that it downloads the original message, implying a read-only operation. However, it doesn't disclose any potential side effects, error conditions, or authentication requirements. For a simple GET operation, this is adequate but not rich; it provides the essential behavioral detail but no extras.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the action, resource, and return type. It includes the endpoint path as a helpful reference without unnecessary fluff. Every word earns its place, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the resource and the return type. It could optionally mention the message encoding or note that this is the raw content versus parsed, but given the simplicity and sibling context, nothing critical is missing. The description is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 covers the single parameter 'id' with a basic description ('The received email id.'). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so no bonus is earned.

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 states a specific verb ('Download') and a clear resource ('the original RFC822/MIME message of a received email'), and even includes the endpoint path. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_received_email (which would return parsed fields) and get_received_email_attachment by focusing on the raw message. The purpose is 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?

The description implies when to use this tool (when you need the raw RFC822/MIME message), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions. For example, it doesn't say 'Use this when you need the raw message instead of parsed fields; use get_received_email for parsed data.' The guidance is implicit but not explicit, so it meets the baseline but lacks direct routing.

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