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 behavioral burden. It omits a meaningful side effect: mark_as_read defaults to true, meaning this 'read' operation mutates mailbox state (marks the message Seen) unless overridden. Permissions, error behavior on a bad message_id, and the side effect of reading are all undisclosed.

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 focused sentence with no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded. It is efficient, though arguably too thin given the side-effect behavior it leaves unstated.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with zero annotations and a default-true mutation (mark_as_read), the description should disclose the state-changing side effect and permission expectations to be fully adequate.

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 100%, so all three parameters (folder, message_id, mark_as_read) are already documented in the schema, including defaults. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource ('Read the full content and details of a specific email message'), which is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as list_emails or search_emails; the required message_id in the schema implies the distinction, not the description itself.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus search_emails or list_emails, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only hint of usage context ('from list_emails or search_emails') appears in the schema parameter description, not in the tool description.

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