get_raw_email

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return shape (a dictionary with a raw_content RFC822 string) and gives practical guidance on consuming it, but says nothing about whether fetching marks the email as read, whether attachments are included inline, size limits, or what happens for an invalid email_id or folder.

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 Args/Returns/Example/Note structure is scannable and the purpose is front-loaded, but the Returns section largely duplicates the existing output schema and the Args block repeats schema titles verbatim, adding bulk without new information.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema and a worked example, this is close to adequate; the remaining shortfall is the absence of any behavioral or permission context and the thin documentation of email_id and folder values.

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 0%, so the description must supply meaning. It only restates the field names ('Email ID', 'Mail folder (default: INBOX)') without indicating the expected ID format, how to obtain an email_id, or which folder values are valid.

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 states a specific verb and resource plus a distinguishing output format: 'Get raw email content in RFC822 format for .eml export.' This separates it in kind from read_email and get_email_attachments, though it never names those siblings 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?

The purpose clause 'for .eml export' and the note about saving raw_content to a .eml file imply when to reach for this tool over read_email, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no alternative named.

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