get_email

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's 'Read' is consistent. It adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying 'decoded' bodies and 'attachment list' (not full attachments), which clarifies behavioral scope without contradicting the annotations.

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?

The description is one tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every element adds value. No fluff or redundant 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?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety/idempotency, the description fully captures the tool's scope: reading one message with specific parts. It notes 'attachment list' to set expectations without needing to explain full return structure. For a simple read operation, this is complete.

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 100% with detailed descriptions for all parameters (uid, folder, uidvalidity). The description itself doesn't mention parameters, and while it implies a single message, it adds no meaning beyond the schema's rich definitions. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one message'), and clearly distinguishes from siblings by detailing exactly what's included (envelope metadata, decoded bodies, attachment list). This makes it unambiguous vs. list_emails, get_thread, or get_attachment.

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 provides clear context ('Read one message') that implies usage for individual retrieval, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. Since the schema points to list_emails/search_emails for UIDs, there's indirect guidance, but the description itself lacks an explicit 'use this when' statement, so not a 5.

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