get_email_body

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe-read profile, and the description adds the useful behavioral fact that the body is returned in bounded chunks requiring continuation. It does not disclose default/max chunk size behavior or what happens when offset exceeds the body length, so it adds moderate but not rich context.

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, front-loaded with the core action and with the scoping word 'bounded' doing real work. The second sentence is terse and earns its place, though it introduces an incorrect identifier rather than pure waste.

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?

With 5 parameters, 20% schema coverage, and no parameter documentation in the schema, the description leaves format selection, offset/maxChars interaction, and truncation behavior undefined. The existence of an output schema excuses it from explaining return values, but the input-side gaps are substantial.

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 only 20% (accountId is the sole documented property), so the description must carry offset, maxChars, and format semantics. Instead it references 'nextOffset', a name absent from the schema, which risks an agent fabricating a parameter; the real pagination parameter is 'offset'.

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 and resource with a distinguishing scope qualifier ('bounded portion of one email body'), which separates it from the sibling get_email/get_thread that likely return whole messages. It stops short of naming those siblings as the non-overlapping alternative, so the contrast must be inferred.

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 only guidance is 'Use nextOffset to continue,' which covers continuation but says nothing about when to choose this tool over get_email, nor any precondition on format or truncation. The guidance that does exist points at a parameter name that does not exist in the schema.

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