pipedrive_mail_messages_get

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. It reveals only that the body is excluded unless include_body is set, which the schema already states via the default and parameter description; nothing is said about permissions, response shape, or error behavior for a missing/invalid ID.

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, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded before the optional-parameter note. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter read of a single record with fully documented params, the description is essentially sufficient to call the tool correctly. The lack of any mention of required permissions or missing-ID behavior is a minor gap given no annotations and no output schema exist.

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 schema already explains both parameters, and the baseline is 3. The description's phrasing ('full content') adds a small amount of meaning about what include_body actually returns, but no syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a single mail message') with identifying scope ('by ID'), so the agent can distinguish it from list-style siblings like pipedrive_mail_thread_messages_list. It does not name or differentiate against those siblings explicitly, which keeps it 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 second sentence gives concrete guidance on using include_body to control payload size, which is genuine usage advice. However, there is no indication of when to use this tool versus the thread or message-list siblings, so the routing guidance is only implied.

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