get_message

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

Discloses important behaviors: sanitized output, wrapping in <untrusted-email>, BODY.PEEK to avoid marking as read, and blocking security/OTP mail. No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden well, though edge cases like errors are not mentioned.

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?

Concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The final sentence about security/OTP is slightly ambiguous but does not bloat the description.

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?

Given the sibling tools and output-less schema, the description gives enough operational context: what is returned, safety handling, and key restrictions. It does not specify attachment behavior, but that is reasonably left to get_attachment.

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 descriptions fully cover the three parameters with useful provenance (uid from search_messages, folder default, account_id from list_accounts). The tool description itself adds no extra parameter meaning, so 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?

Clearly states the tool reads one message as sanitized text, distinguishing it from attachment retrieval or search operations. The verb 'Read' and resource 'one message' are explicit.

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?

Mentions BODY.PEEK and security/OTP blocking, giving some usage context, but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_attachment or search_messages. The guidance is implicit rather than direct.

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