getEmailDetail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that content can be limited via a content range for large emails, which is useful behavioral context, and hints at the returned payload (content, headers, attachments list). However it says nothing about permissions/auth, whether this is a pure read, error behavior for invalid uids, or pagination beyond the range limit.

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 compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. Slightly generic wording ('detailed information'), but every clause carries information about either scope or the range-limiting capability.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return shape; it does so partially by naming content, headers, and attachments list, but omits item-level structure and the effect of range limiting on truncation. Combined with 0% parameter coverage and no annotations, the definition is adequate but leaves real gaps an agent must guess at.

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 description coverage is 0% across three parameters. The description only touches contentRange ('content range limiting'), leaving folder (default INBOX) and uid entirely undocumented, and it does not explain the nested start/end semantics or defaults within contentRange. It therefore compensates for only a fraction of the missing 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?

States a specific verb+resource (get detailed info about a specific email) and enumerates what is returned: full content, headers, attachments list. It does not differentiate from siblings like getAttachment (which also retrieves attachment content) or listEmails/searchEmails, leaving the boundary between 'detail' and 'list/search' implicit.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance. The description implies the tool targets one specific email (requiring a uid) but never tells the agent how this differs from searchEmails or listEmails, nor when to prefer getAttachment for attachment retrieval. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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