Get Email Body

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return content (parsed text and HTML) and its narrow scope. However, it says nothing about read-only status, behavior when the body is absent or the ID is unknown, or permission requirements, which are real gaps for a zero-annotation tool.

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 tight sentence that front-loads the key qualifier ('only the parsed body content') and wastes no words. Nothing redundant or buried.

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 one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description adequately explains what comes back (text and HTML body). Minor gaps remain around missing-body and error cases, but the tool's simplicity means little else is needed.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The email ID (em_xxx format)'), so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 ('Returns') and a precisely scoped resource ('parsed body content (text and HTML) for an email'). The word 'only' signals it is a subset of a fuller email fetch, which helps against siblings like get-email-raw and get-email-meta, though those siblings are never named explicitly.

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 is implied rather than stated: 'only the parsed body' suggests using this instead of the broader get-email when body text is all you need. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no sibling is named as the alternative, leaving the agent to infer the routing.

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