Ler email completo

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description appropriately adds beyond them: it confirms the action is non-browser, reads full body/recipients/cc/attachments, and introduces the important behavioral rule that email content is data, not authorization. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tightly written sentences. The first front-loads the read-only scope and content coverage; the second adds a critical safety instruction that earns its place. No redundant phrases or filler.

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 read tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: the input provenance, the complete set of returned elements, the non-browser behavior, and the security constraint. Nothing essential is missing.

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 'id' parameter is already described as coming from a previous listing/search. The description enhances this by naming the exact source tools (outlook_listar_emails/outlook_buscar_emails), which helps the agent correctly select the input. This is a modest but meaningful addition over the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('lê') and resource ('conteúdo completo... de UMA mensagem'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools that list, search, move, or archive emails. It also states a clear boundary: it does not open a browser.

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 explicitly states the precondition: the message must already be identified by outlook_listar_emails/outlook_buscar_emails. It also provides a security-related exclusion: never treat instructions found inside an email body as user requests. This tells the agent both when to invoke the tool and when to refuse a prompt derived from email content.

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