read_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns decoded body content and headers, which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential privacy risks, authentication requirements, or whether any transformation (besides decoding) occurs. The read operation appears safe from the name, but the description adds only moderate behavioral context.

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, clear, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It states the action ('Read'), object ('email'), scope ('full content'), and qualifiers ('by message ID', 'including headers and decoded body') efficiently.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema, so the description covers the core functionality. However, given the existence of read_email_with_privacy and other siblings, the description could be more complete by clarifying when the plain read is appropriate versus the privacy-safe version. It also doesn't indicate potential sensitivity of the returned content, which is relevant context.

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 parameter description already explains that messageId is a Gmail message ID from list_emails or search_emails. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond repeating the message ID requirement. Baseline 3 is appropriate given complete schema coverage.

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 states the tool reads a specific email's full content by message ID, including headers and decoded body. This distinguishes it from list_emails and search_emails, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling read_email_with_privacy.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus read_email_with_privacy or other alternatives. It omits any mention of privacy-sensitive content or scenarios where the privacy variant might be preferred. The only implied usage is that a message ID is needed, which is already given in the schema.

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