Récupérer un email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does say what the tool returns (full email content, recipients, attachments), but it does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or whether attachments are inline vs. handled separately by get_attachments.

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, efficient French sentence that front-loads the verb, identifies the resource, enumerates key content, and specifies the input source. Every element contributes value; there is 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 one-parameter fetch tool, the description is mostly complete: it names the key return elements and the parameter schema covers the input workflow. The main gap is the ambiguous relationship with get_attachments and the lack of any note about attachment representation or output format.

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%, and the schema already explains that itemId is an EWS identifier obtained via search_emails. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the 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 clearly identifies the operation: 'Récupère le contenu complet d'un email' and specifies the resource and output components (corps HTML, destinataires, pièces jointes). It is distinct from most siblings like search_emails, send_email, and update_email, but the explicit mention of pièces jointes blurs the boundary with get_attachments without resolving it.

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated: the main description says 'à partir de son identifiant', and the parameter schema adds that itemId is 'obtenu via search_emails', which implies a search-then-fetch workflow. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over get_attachments or other siblings.

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