get_email_content

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get email content' without mentioning whether the operation is read-only, whether attachments are included, what the 'include_block_content' flag affects, or how failures are handled. This is insufficient for a tool with this level of complexity.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, consisting of one direct sentence with no filler. Yet it is under-specified: it omits all contextual and behavioral detail that an agent would need, making the brevity a limitation rather than an asset.

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 an output schema present, return format is partly covered, but the surrounding context is missing: no indication of how this relates to sibling email tools, what the identifiers mean, whether the operation has side effects, or how the optional include_block_content changes the result. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, this description is too sparse to be complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no explanation of the parameters. The parameter names themselves (account_id, folder_id, message_id, include_block_content) are reasonably self-explanatory, and the schema provides type, required, and default information, but the description does nothing to compensate for the lack of formal schema descriptions.

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 verb ('get') and resource ('email content'), so the basic action is clear. However, it does not distinguish this tool from adjacent siblings like list_emails or search_emails, which also deal with email retrieval. It is minimally clear but not differentiating.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus list_emails, search_emails, or get_account_details. The description gives no context about required identifiers, preconditions, or situations where this tool is preferred.

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