read_email_with_privacy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that only redacted subject/snippet/body fields are returned and that a local privacy pipeline is used, adding value. However, it does not mention potential side effects, prerequisites, or error behavior, which is a gap for a privacy-sensitive 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?

The description is one concise sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the action ('Read one email') and efficiently conveys scope and method.

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 tool, the description adequately covers purpose, return content, and processing method. It does not specify exact output format, but that is acceptable given no output schema and the low complexity.

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% for the single parameter 'messageId', so the description adds no further parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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 one email and returns privacy-redacted fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'read_email' by explicitly mentioning the privacy-redaction and local pipeline, making its purpose specific and unique.

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 implies this tool is for when privacy-redacted email content is needed, contrasting with the plain 'read_email' sibling. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.

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