get_email

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

The description discloses several non-obvious behaviors: 64 kB truncation, HTML-to-text conversion, attachment listing without download, and a Warnings line for suspicious content. It also includes an important security caveat about treating message text as data. These go well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

Three sentences that are dense with useful information. The opening 'Read one message' is a clear, front-loaded purpose, and every subsequent clause adds value without redundancy.

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?

Despite minimal schema and no output schema, the description gives a comprehensive picture of the tool's behavior: input format (one message), output characteristics (truncated text, warnings), and a security note. It is sufficient for an agent to use the tool safely and effectively.

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 description does not explain the 'folder' and 'uid' parameters or how they identify the message. With 0% schema coverage, the description was responsible for compensating, but it remains silent on parameter meaning.

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 the specific verb 'Read' with the resource 'one message' and details the content (envelope, body). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_attachment (attachments not downloaded), search_emails (search), and create_draft (write).

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 the tool is for reading a single email's content and explicitly notes attachments are listed but not downloaded, subtly directing users to get_attachment for actual attachment retrieval. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statements.

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