soap_message_receipt

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior for a mail tool: it does not mark the message as read, which is exactly the side effect an agent would otherwise worry about.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the identifier constraint front-loaded before the side-effect note. Appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

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 low-complexity read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers selection and one side effect, but leaves open what 'metadata' actually contains in the response and what account_id means. An agent can call it correctly in the common case but may be surprised by the return payload.

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 carry parameter meaning, and it only partly does: it clarifies soap_message_id must be a SOAP ID (not an IMAP UID) but says nothing about account_id or the ID's format. That is real added value over the bare schema, but half the parameters remain undocumented in both places.

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 and resource ('read saved message metadata') and adds the key differentiator that it takes a SOAP ID rather than an IMAP UID, which distinguishes it from read_message/search_messages. It stops short of naming the sibling explicitly, but the ID-type distinction does most of the disambiguation work.

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?

'using a SOAP ID, not IMAP UID' effectively tells the agent which tool to pick depending on which identifier it holds, which is the main routing decision among the message-read siblings. There are no explicit exclusions or prerequisites (e.g. what to do if only an IMAP UID is available), so it is clear context but not a full when/when-not rule set.

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