get_email_log

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers safety. The description adds that the result includes body and headers, which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not disclose pagination, error behavior, or any rate limits, so the added transparency is minimal.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and key content ('including body and headers'). No filler or repetition.

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-only getter with no output schema, the description is adequate: it states what is returned. It doesn't cover edge cases or return field details, but given the tool's simple nature and annotations, it's complete enough. Could have added a pointer to list_email_logs for sys_id discovery.

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 describes the only parameter (sys_id) fully, so the description's contribution is minimal. It doesn't explain how sys_id is used or where to find it, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the exact resource ('email log entry'), and specifies the scope ('full details including body and headers'). This clearly distinguishes it from list_email_logs and other get_* tools that retrieve metadata or summaries.

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 implies using this tool when full details of a single email log entry are needed, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_email_logs to obtain the sys_id. It gives no exclusions or comparison with sibling tools.

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