Obtener un correo completo

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already marks this as read-only; the description adds value by specifying exactly which parts of the message are returned (body, sender, recipients), which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema. No contradiction.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the essential sourcing information. No filler.

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 read tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it returns (body, sender, recipients), how to get the ID, and is a read operation. It's sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 already provides a description for itemId, but the tool description enriches it by explaining the ItemId's provenance (obtained from ews_list_inbox or ews_search_inbox), which helps agents know how to acquire a valid 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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Obtiene' and specifies the resource 'contenido completo (cuerpo, remitente, destinatarios)' and the identifier 'ItemId'. It also references sibling tools for obtaining the ID, making it clear this is the fetch-full-message tool, distinct from reply/forward etc.

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 clearly indicates the prerequisite: the ItemId comes from ews_list_inbox or ews_search_inbox, implying this tool is used after those list/search operations to retrieve full content. It doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the context is strong enough.

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