get_draft

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no behavior for a missing/invalid draftId, no note on which account or mailbox is queried, and no mention of the messageFormat default (FULL_CONTENT) that materially changes payload size.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero padding, but the brevity comes from omission rather than economy. It is efficient but under-specified for a tool with a non-trivial format enum.

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 read tool with annotations carrying the safety profile and no output schema to explain, the definition is minimally sufficient to invoke. It falls short on failure behavior and on the format-selection tradeoff, which is the only real decision an agent must make here.

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 50%: messageFormat is documented in detail in the schema, but draftId has no description and the description compensates for neither parameter. Nothing in the text clarifies id format or the cost/size implications of choosing FULL_CONTENT or RAW.

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?

States a specific verb ('Retrieves') and resource ('a draft') keyed by id, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from near-neighbors like get_message or list_drafts, relying on the name alone for that separation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this instead of list_drafts, get_message, or search_threads, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer selection purely from the tool name.

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