retrieve_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation via 'Retrieve' and 'GET', and it discloses that events are included in the result. It does not detail error handling or response structure, but for a simple GET by id this is adequate.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler. It efficiently front-loads the verb, resource, scope, and HTTP method, making the purpose immediately clear.

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 GET with no output schema, the description sufficiently states what is returned (the email and its events). It could elaborate on what 'events' means, but this is a minor gap for a tool of this simplicity.

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 the schema already fully documents the id parameter. The description's 'by id' adds no new meaning beyond what is already known, 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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Retrieve a sent email and its events by id' precisely states the action and target. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_received_email by explicitly scoping to 'sent email', and the endpoint GET /emails/:id reinforces the resource.

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 usage for sent emails by saying 'sent email', which distinguishes it from received-email siblings, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. Guidance is present but only implied.

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