avanan_get_email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get full details' vaguely promises a return payload, but it does not explain what details are included, error/not-found behavior, permissions, or that this is a non-mutating read operation.

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?

One clean sentence with no filler. The core purpose and the required identifier are front-loaded, and every word contributes to the description.

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 single-parameter read tool, the description is serviceable but not complete. It lacks sibling differentiation, behavioral details like return contents or error behavior, and an explanation of how an agent would obtain an entityId. No output schema or annotations exist to fill these 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 schema already documents entityId at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context by clarifying that entityId refers to a secured entity (email, file, or message), but it does not provide a format, example, or guidance on how to obtain the ID.

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 action ('Get full details') and a clear resource scope: one secured entity (email, file, message) by Avanan entity ID. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as avanan_get_event or avanan_search_emails, so it misses the full sibling-differentiation bar.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent is not told to use avanan_search_emails to find an entity ID first, nor told to use avanan_get_event for events. Usage is only implied when the agent already has an entity ID.

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