get_email_html

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: 'strictly filtered HTML without remote loading' discloses that remote content is not loaded (privacy/security feature), and 'empty paragraphs are preserved' indicates a specific formatting behavior. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Read strictly filtered HTML'). Every word adds value: 'strictly filtered' and 'without remote loading' convey important behavioral constraints, and 'empty paragraphs are preserved' adds a specific detail. No wasted words.

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 has an output schema (not shown in detail), which likely explains the return format, so the description doesn't need to cover that. The description covers the key behavioral aspects (filtering, no remote loading, empty paragraph preservation). Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, all required), the description is reasonably complete, though it could benefit from explaining the parameters or providing more context on when to use it.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. However, the description doesn't explain any of the four parameters (account_id, mailbox, uid_validity, uid). The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory (identifying an email), but the description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides. With 0% coverage, the description should have provided more detail, but the parameters are standard email identifiers.

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 filtered HTML from an email, specifying 'strictly filtered HTML without remote loading' and 'empty paragraphs are preserved'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_email and get_emails by focusing on HTML content with specific filtering behavior, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage for retrieving HTML content with specific filtering requirements, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_email or get_emails. The context of 'strictly filtered' and 'without remote loading' suggests safety considerations, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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