getEmailsById

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the rate limit (100 requests per 1m), read-only status, and GET method, which give useful safety and cadence signals. It does not cover error behavior or return shape, but for a simple read operation this is mostly sufficient.

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?

One compact sentence with the primary action front-loaded. Every clause adds value: the action, the rate limit, and the read-only endpoint. No filler or redundant explanation.

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-required-parameter read-only tool, the description provides the endpoint, rate limit, and method. It lacks explicit output expectations and alternative usage guidance, but those gaps are minor 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 schema has only the id parameter with 0% description coverage. The description maps id to the email resource via the endpoint path, but it does not explain the id format, constraints, or scope. It only partially compensates for the lack of schema documentation.

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: 'Get email details' and the endpoint GET /postframe/emails/{id}. Its singular 'by id' focus distinguishes it from sibling list-style tools such as getEmails. The read-only designation adds further clarity.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Get email details' and the required id parameter, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like getEmails. No when-not-to-use or alternative routing is provided.

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