beel_get_email_delivery

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

Annotations already mark readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds real behavioral nuance: body is fetched live and may be unavailable if the provider no longer retains the message, and QUEUED/REJECTED emails have no body. This helps the agent predict null body fields.

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 lead sentence states the return payload, bullet points clarify body availability, and the endpoint line anchors the HTTP operation. No filler or repeated annotation content. The fallback caveats are concise and valuable.

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 two-parameter read-only GET with no output schema, the description covers the main return components and explains the most surprising behavior (nullable body). It doesn't enumerate every response field or error case, but the schema plus these caveats are sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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 descriptions cover both account_id and email_id fully (100%), including the 403 behavior for account_id. The description only reproduces path names in the endpoint line and adds no new parameter semantics, so it stays at the baseline.

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 and resource: 'Returns one recorded email' and enumerates its body, attachments, and invoices. 'One recorded email' differentiates it from the list sibling beel_list_email_deliveries. This is unambiguous.

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 a single-record lookup by id through the endpoint and 'returns one recorded email,' but it never names alternatives or states when to prefer this over beel_list_email_deliveries or beel_get_email_delivery_indicators. Usage context is present only implicitly.

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