Get Gmail Message Content

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the 20,000-character truncation, the disk-export/download-URL behavior for full=True, transport differences (HTTP vs stdio), and the stateless fallback. This is precisely the kind of behavioral context an agent needs to predict side effects and response shape.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, and the follow-up paragraph is dense but essential, covering truncation, export behavior, and stateless deployments without filler. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

With a fully described schema, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description adds the remaining behavioral details needed for correct invocation. Nothing necessary is missing.

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 each parameter. The description adds meaningful value by stating the default inline truncation limit and explaining why full=True matters—large messages never stream through the model context—which helps an agent reason about when to use it.

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 identifies the operation: retrieving the full content (subject, sender, recipients, body) of a specific Gmail message, with a concrete verb and resource. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like the batch or thread variants, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 explains when full=True is needed (large messages, byte-exact fidelity) and the default truncation behavior. It does not, however, give explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over search_gmail_messages, get_gmail_messages_content_batch, or get_gmail_thread_content; usage context is implied rather than stated.

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