get_email_result

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, establishing that this is a safe retrieval operation that may be affected by external changes. The description adds the context that this returns a previously launched search's result, aligning with the annotations. It does not disclose behavior like whether results may be incomplete, whether polling is required, or what happens with an invalid id, but given the simple retrieval nature and annotation coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and object and avoids restating the tool name or listing trivial details. This is an ideal length for a tool of this simplicity.

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, read-only retrieval tool with a fully described schema and useful annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly identifies what the tool returns and the source of the id. It could be improved by noting whether the result may be pending or how to handle an incomplete search, but those are minor gaps given the simplicity of the 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?

The input schema fully documents the single 'id' parameter with the description 'Search ID returned from find_email', so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description itself does not add additional parameter meaning, but the schema already provides clear provenance for the parameter. Baseline 3 is correct because the schema carries the semantic weight and no gaps remain.

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 clearly states the action ('Retrieve') and the resource ('result of a previously launched email search'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the singular 'email search' differentiates it from bulk result tools like get_emails_bulk_result. Overall, the verb and resource are specific enough for an agent to know what this tool returns.

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 the tool should be used after launching an email search, and the schema's parameter description states the id comes from find_email. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_emails_bulk_result or get_verification_result, nor any mention of polling behavior or error conditions. Usage context is present but only implied, not clearly delineated.

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