read_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It names the returned fields, which helps, but it omits whether reading marks the message as read and whether any permission or scope is needed. That side-effect question matters a lot for a mail-read tool, so the disclosure is only partly complete.

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 puts the core sentence first, then adds an Args block, a Returns block, and a short example. That structure is easy to scan, though the example largely repeats the required-parameter signature and adds little.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema, this covers the essentials: what is read, which ID to supply, and which fields come back. The remaining gap is the unstated side effect of marking a message read.

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 has to document both parameters itself, and it does. email_id is tied to its source (list_emails) and folder is given a default of INBOX, all of which sits above the schema-only baseline.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'Read the full content of a specific email.' That clearly separates it from list_emails and search_emails, which return partial or metadata content. It does not distinguish itself from get_raw_email, the sibling tool most likely to be confused with it.

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 parenthetical '(from list_emails)' hints that the email_id comes from a prior list call, so the workflow is implied. However, the description never states when to choose read_email over get_raw_email, or what to do when the ID is invalid or comes from search_emails instead.

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