get_email_raw

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. Discloses base64 encoding, bit-identical nature, no parsing, inbound-only restriction. Does not mention error handling (e.g., missing message) but covers key behavioral traits.

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?

Three efficient sentences: what, why, and when. No redundant phrasing; every sentence 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?

Given 3 parameters and no output schema, description explains return format, use case, and limitations. Could mention that raw bytes include headers (implied by RFC-822) and optional mailbox behavior, but overall sufficient.

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%, baseline is 3. Description adds context that message_id must be inbound, but does not elaborate beyond schema on mailbox or project_id. No additional parameter semantics beyond what schema provides.

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?

Clearly states retrieval of raw RFC-822 bytes for inbound email, highlighting bit-identical property for cryptographic verification. Distinguishes from sibling `get_email` by specifying display/threading use case.

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?

Explicitly defines when to use (cryptographic verification) and when not (outbound returns 404, display/threading use get_email instead). Provides clear context and alternative.

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