get_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. The verb 'Read' implies a non-destructive operation, and the description discloses what is returned (full body and attachment metadata). However, it does not explicitly state lack of side effects (e.g., not marking as read) or mention authentication/rate limits, which are common for read operations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any fluff. Every word contributes value, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple read tool with two well-documented parameters, the description is complete: it states the result (full body content and attachment metadata). It does not explain error handling or return format details, but no output schema is expected, and the schema covers parameters. The context is sufficient for straightforward use.

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%, and the schema already documents both parameters (messageId and format) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 clearly states 'Read a single email' with a specific verb and resource, and further specifies what is included ('full body content and attachment metadata'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_emails (plural list) and get_attachment (attachment-specific).

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 full content, but it does not explicitly reference alternatives or state when not to use the tool. Sibling tools like get_emails and search_emails are not mentioned, so guidance relies on the name and 'single email' phrase.

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