beel_get_email_delivery

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds significant context: the body is fetched live, availability depends on provider retention, `body_available`/`html_body`/`text_body` behavior, and the QUEUED/REJECTED edge case. This goes beyond the annotation set without contradicting it.

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 tightly structured: a single-sentence summary of return content, a concise caveat about body availability, and an endpoint line. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose. No filler or 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?

For a read operation of moderate complexity, the description covers all essential aspects: the returned data, conditional body availability, and the statuses that preclude a body. With no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what an agent can expect. The endpoint is a helpful extra. Nothing critical is missing.

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 input schema already covers both parameters with detailed descriptions (email_id, account_id including 403 semantics), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only references the parameters indirectly via the endpoint. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Returns') and a precise resource ('one recorded email'), enumerating the returned data (body, attachments, invoices for batch emails). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like beel_get_email_delivery_indicators (which presumably returns indicators) and beel_list_email_deliveries (which lists multiple).

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 usage for retrieving a single email's details and explains when the body may be unavailable (QUEUED/REJECTED), but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over its siblings, such as beel_get_email_delivery_indicators or beel_get_email_delivery_indicators. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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