Get Gmail Message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as rate limits, authentication needs, or side effects. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description's value is minimal.

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 concise with three clear sentences: purpose, parameters, return value. No unnecessary words, and the main action is front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, full schema coverage, annotations for behavior), the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and return format. No output schema exists, but the return explanation ('full content including headers and body text') is sufficient.

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%, so parameters are well-documented. The description repeats the parameter names and adds the default for response_format, but this is already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the description adds little extra meaning.

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 'Get the full content of a specific Gmail message', which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like gmail_list_messages (which lists summaries) and gmail_get_attachment (which fetches attachments).

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 is for retrieving full message content, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., gmail_list_messages for summaries). No when-not-to-use or alternative mentions.

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