panelica_email_get_v1_email_accounts_id

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'gets a specific email account', implying a read operation but not explicitly stating idempotency, side effects, or authentication requirements. The HTTP method is mentioned but not explained.

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?

Very concise: single line plus HTTP method and category. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with purpose. Could include more context without much bloat.

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?

No output schema and the description doesn't specify what is returned, errors, or prerequisites. For a simple get operation, the description is minimal but lacks completeness for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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% with one parameter 'id' described as 'Path parameter: id'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it gets a specific email account by ID. The verb 'gets' and resource 'email account' are specific, but it doesn't differentiate from sibling email-related tools like email_autoresponders or email_forwarders, though those are different resources. Purpose is clear but could be more distinct.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like listing email accounts or other resource-specific get endpoints. Does not provide context for when-not-to-use or prerequisites.

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