io_get_mail

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares the safe-read profile, and the description adds nothing beyond it — no error behavior for a missing/invalid ID, no note on whether the response is affected by permissions, no hint about the view parameter's response-shaping effect. Pure restatement of the name.

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 ten-word sentence that is fully front-loaded and contains no filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing the resource or the identifier requirement.

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 with full schema coverage, an output schema absent because the response mirrors iOffice's payload, and annotations covering safety, the description is adequate. It is missing only minor operational detail such as behavior when an ID is not found.

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 the baseline is 3. The description only echoes the "by ID" idea already documented in the id property and says nothing about the compact/full view semantics, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb ("Get") plus resource ("iOffice mail item") and scope ("single ... by ID"), which neatly distinguishes it from the list-style sibling io_list_mail. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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 phrase "by ID" implies the precondition for use (you must already have an item ID), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as io_list_mail for discovery or io_deliver_mail/io_return_mail for state changes.

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