Get Email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of establishing behavior. It does disclose that the operation is read-only ('Retrieve') and that the content is decrypted and full, which is useful. However, it does not mention authentication, failure behavior, or constraints beyond the ID, leaving moderate transparency gaps.

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 a single sentence with no filler. The verb, object, and access key are all front-loaded, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 ID-based fetch with a complete input schema and an output schema present, the description plus structured data is largely sufficient. It lacks explicit usage routing, but no critical invocation detail is missing for this read-only tool.

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%, so the schema already documents email_id and format in sufficient detail. The description adds 'decrypted' and 'full content' semantics for the result but no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Retrieve') and names the exact resource ('full decrypted content of an email') plus the access key ('unique internal ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_emails or list_mailboxes.

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 implies that an email_id must already be known by saying 'by its unique internal ID', but it never explicitly says to use search_emails first or when to prefer this tool over alternatives. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, so usage 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.