get_email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly describes the return content—event timeline with send, delivery, bounce, complaint, open, and click—and the diagnostic intent. It stops short of covering error cases, permissions, or id-not-found behavior, but for a simple fetch operation this is reasonably transparent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and response content, followed by a practical use-case hint. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter fetch tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the agent gets back and when to use it. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_thread or get_email_metrics, but the 'full event timeline' phrasing and diagnostic purpose make the tool's role clear.

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% and the single required parameter 'id' is described as 'Message id'. The description reinforces that this identifies a single message but does not add meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Fetch one message' with a defined scope, including the full event timeline. It clearly distinguishes this from related sibling tools like list_emails, get_email_metrics, and get_thread by focusing on one message's event history.

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 a clear use case: 'This is the tool to reach for when asked why an email didn't arrive.' It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the situational guidance is strong enough for an agent to route appropriately.

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