Get Email Meta

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the non-obvious trait that attachment info is returned while attachment content is not — the main trap an agent could fall into. It leaves auth requirements, failure behavior, and return shape unstated, though the verb "Returns" makes the read-only nature evident.

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, no filler, and the payload scope (no attachment content) is front-loaded ahead of the use case.

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 read tool with full schema coverage, this is nearly complete: it sets payload expectations and the intent. The remaining gap is that it does not position itself against the several overlapping email-fetch siblings.

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?

Single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage including the em_xxx format note, so the schema does the work. The description adds nothing about the id beyond what the schema already says; 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?

States a specific verb and resource (returns email metadata) and scopes the payload by explicitly excluding attachment content, which partly separates it from get-email-attachments and get-email-raw. It does not name the sibling it should be chosen over, so an agent still has to infer the difference from get-email or get-email-body.

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?

"Useful for inspecting without downloading large attachments" implies the usage context but never states when to pick this over get-email, get-email-raw, or get-email-body. The guidance is implied rather than explicit routing.

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