read_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses the shape of the payload (headers, plain-text rather than HTML body, attachment names rather than attachment contents), but omits whether reading marks the message as read or requires any specific auth/scope, which are meaningful side effects for an email read.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource, scope, and payload contents, and no filler. Every clause 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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is the only source of truth, yet it leaves parameter meaning, truncation behavior, and side effects unspecified. An agent cannot confidently determine how to obtain message_id or whether a 20000-char cap applies.

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%, so all three parameters (account, message_id, max_body_chars) are undocumented, and the description adds no meaning for account or where message_id comes from. It also says 'in full' while the schema exposes max_body_chars defaulting to 20000, leaving truncation behavior unexplained.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Read one email in full') and scopes it to a single message with an enumerated content set (headers, plain-text body, attachment list), which distinguishes it from read_thread at a glance. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than read it.

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 when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. With siblings like search_emails and read_thread available, the description never says whether to call this after a search or how it differs from reading an entire thread.

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