get_email

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions 'including delivery status' as extra info, but it doesn't state expected side effects (though implied read-only), error behavior, or any access requirements. The description is largely 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 a single concise sentence that immediately tells the user what the tool does. No filler or repetition, every word adds value.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema present, so the short description is largely sufficient. It doesn't explain return values (handled by output schema) but provides core purpose and a key detail. Given the low complexity, the description covers the essential context.

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 describes the email_id parameter (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to add much. It adds no extra semantic detail about the parameter itself, hence the baseline score of 3.

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 identifies the action (get) and resource (email details), and adds a specific feature (delivery status). However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like list_emails, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_emails. It doesn't mention prerequisites, exclusions, or alternate tool names, leaving the usage context entirely inferred.

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