get-mail-message

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description's mention of included fields (subject, sender, etc.) adds useful behavioral context without contradiction. It does not detail all response elements but is sufficient.

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 two efficient sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Get a single Outlook email message...') and includes a helpful usage hint. No unnecessary 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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description outlines the key response fields and prerequisite step. It relies on schema descriptions for parameters, which is acceptable. A mention of pagination or expand behavior would improve completeness but not required.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no new parameter details beyond referencing 'messageId' indirectly. Baseline score of 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 the tool retrieves a single Outlook email message by its ID, listing key fields included (subject, sender, recipients, body, attachment flags). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list-mail-messages' and 'get-mail-message-mime'.

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 explicitly instructs to use 'list-mail-messages' first to obtain the message ID, providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives beyond that.

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