Mail Get Message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses conditional response behavior: attachmentNames is always populated while htmlBody is only populated when includeHtmlBody=true (default false). It could add error/not-found behavior but covers the key conditional.

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 compact sentences. The first gives purpose and scope; the second gives the field-availability nuance. No filler or repetition.

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 two-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers the call shape, parameter effect, and important field-population behavior. It could mention what happens when the entryId is not found, but that is a minor omission.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates: entryId is identified as the Outlook message identifier, and includeHtmlBody is explained with its effect on htmlBody population and its default. Both parameters are given meaningful semantics beyond the bare 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?

States a specific action ('Fetch full detail ... for a single ... message by its Outlook entryId'), clearly distinguishing it from search or listing tools. The mention of Inbox/Sent Items/Drafts/folderPath adds scope.

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 makes the use case explicit: use when you have an Outlook entryId and need the full single message, including body and attachments. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as mail_search, so it stops short of a 5.

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