read_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It communicates that this is a read-only retrieval operation and explains what the response will contain: headers, text body, and attachment list. It does not detail edge cases or the effect of prefer_html, but the absence of side effects is clear.

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 compact sentence with no filler. The core action and return contents are front-loaded, and the parameter provenance is wrapped in a concise parenthetical.

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 explains the likely return shape well enough (headers, text body, attachment list) and identifies how to obtain the required IDs. It could be more explicit about headers/attachment list details and the prefer_html behavior, but nothing essential is missing for a straightforward read operation.

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 explains each parameter. The description adds meaningful provenance by stating that folder_uid and item_id come from search_emails or list_recent_emails, which helps an agent supply valid values. prefer_html is not mentioned in the description, but its schema description is sufficient.

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 ('Read'), a clear resource ('an email'), and enumerates the returned content (headers, text body, attachment list). It also names the source tools for the required IDs, so an agent can distinguish it from search/list tools without opening the schema.

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 parenthetical 'from search_emails or list_recent_emails' clearly signals the intended workflow: first locate emails via those sibling tools, then read full content with this tool. It does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives, but the prerequisite relationship is clear.

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