get_email

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context beyond annotations: it reads 'safe headers/plain text' specifically, excluding HTML/attachments, and requires a complete returned identity. 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the verb 'Read' and the object 'safe headers/plain text', with no redundant or filler content. 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?

Complexity is low, output schema exists, and annotations cover safety traits. The description sufficiently clarifies the content scope and identity requirement. A minor gap remains: it does not explain edge cases like mismatched uid_validity or error behavior, but this is not essential for tool selection.

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% with 4 required parameters. The description groups them as 'one complete returned identity', providing conceptual meaning that all four must be used together. However, it does not explain individual parameter roles or formats (e.g., uid_validity), leaving part of the burden unmet.

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 the tool reads safe headers/plain text, with 'using one complete returned identity' indicating a single email. It distinguishes from siblings like get_email_html (HTML content) and get_emails (plural/list) by emphasizing plain text and singular identity.

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 phrase 'using one complete returned identity' implies it should be used when a full identity from a prior operation is available, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this versus alternatives like get_email_html or get_emails. Usage context is implied, not clearly defined.

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