get-mail-message

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing that returned bodies are in HTML format only, a behavioral constraint. The annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive nature, so the focus on format is appropriate and helpful.

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 concise with two sentences: the first clearly states the purpose, and the second provides a key usage hint. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information.

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?

The description does not cover return value structure or other operational details, and there is no output schema. While the select parameter allows field choice, the absence of return value documentation limits completeness for a retrieval tool.

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 covers all 6 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter-level meaning. It briefly mentions $expand usage, but this is minimal and does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'eventMessage object', making the purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-mail-message-mime' that also handle event messages, requiring inference from the object type.

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 provides a usage tip for the $expand parameter to retrieve the associated event, offering some guidance. However, it lacks any when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice relative to alternatives, such as using list-mail-messages for listing or get-mail-message-mime for MIME content.

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