get_indexed_mail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds that reads come from a cache with no live Outlook access, implying staleness, but says nothing about what happens with a missing/expired mail_id, body truncation, or the response shape.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the primary purpose and the cache-only constraint front-loaded. Every clause carries information.

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 two-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the basics are present. Missing but relevant: behavior on cache miss, whether the body is truncated by default, and any indication of returned fields.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate: it does explain the origin of mail_id (returned by search_emails), which is real added meaning. However, max_body_chars is never mentioned, leaving the truncation parameter undocumented in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb (read) and resource (cached original email body) and ties it to the mail_id produced by search_emails. It is clearly distinguishable from a live-mail fetch, though it never names the sibling get_mail_thread, so the boundary with that tool is left implicit.

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?

Explicitly says the mail_id must come from search_emails and that no live Outlook access is available, which tells the agent when this tool applies rather than a real Outlook call. It gives no exclusions, e.g. when to use get_mail_thread instead of this single-message fetch.

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