get_email

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

The description discloses a significant side effect: 'marks the email as read', which goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false does not specify the nature of the mutation). It also specifies return contents (headers, body, attachments metadata), which is critical since there is no output schema.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. The side effect is clearly separated and every sentence carries necessary information without redundancy.

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?

For a one-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description adequately covers both the return value (headers, body, attachments metadata) and the behavioral side effect (marks as read). No major gaps.

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 already provides full coverage with 'Email ID (UUID)' for the id parameter. The description adds no extra param details beyond 'single email by ID', which is already conveyed. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a single email by ID') and lists included content (headers, body, attachments metadata). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_emails, archive_email, and reply_to_email.

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 clearly implies usage: when you need the full content of a specific email by ID. It does not explicitly exclusions or alternatives, but the tool name and description make the use case unambiguous.

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