Get conversion diagnostics

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonable work: it discloses the non-destructive trait ('without writing permanent files'), the always-JSON return, the state enum values (normal/degraded/review_recommended), and that some keys are conditional. It omits error behavior and any cost/latency characteristics, but the core behavioral profile is present.

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?

Purpose and usage are front-loaded in two compact sentences, which is good. The closing enumeration of return keys largely duplicates the existing output schema and consumes several lines without adding routing or setup value.

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?

Return values are covered by the output schema, so the description's key list is redundant rather than additive. For a 13-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, the description leaves the whole configuration surface undocumented, which is a substantial completeness gap despite the adequate purpose/usage framing.

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?

There are 13 parameters at 0% schema description coverage, so the description is expected to compensate and instead says nothing about any of them. Preset, thread_mode, thread_order, and the five-plus strip_* toggles are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent no basis for setting them.

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 and resource ('Inspect email quality and structure') and adds a differentiating constraint versus the convert_* siblings: it operates 'without writing permanent files'. That implicitly separates it from the conversion tools, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

It gives clear trigger conditions — 'assess conversion quality before committing' and 'troubleshoot problematic .eml files' — which tells the agent when this inspection step is warranted. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating exclusions.

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