proton_read_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it omits key traits: whether reading marks the message as read, whether it returns the full body or only headers, and any auth/account prerequisites. It only enumerates a few returned fields before truncating.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, putting the verb and resource first and the id-source dependency second. The text is truncated ('recipi...'), which is a data artifact rather than padding.

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 read-one tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should fully specify the required id and the response shape; it gestures at returned fields (sender, recipient...) but the empty parameter schema leaves the id contract underspecified. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

The schema declares zero parameters, yet the tool evidently requires a message id; the description supplies that missing semantics by explaining where the id comes from ('the id proton_list_emails or proton_search_emails returned'). With zero schema params the 4 baseline applies, and the description adds genuine compensating value.

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 ('Reads one Proton Mail message') and distinguishes itself from proton_list_emails/proton_search_emails by naming them as the source of the id. It does not explicitly say it is the alternative to those siblings, but an agent can tell it apart from the listing tools.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the agent learns the id must come from proton_list_emails or proton_search_emails, which establishes a prerequisite call chain. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or statement about which sibling to prefer for different needs.

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