Get Email Body

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that both text and HTML body may be returned, but it does not state whether fetching marks the email as read, how MIME parts are handled, what the default return format is, or what happens when no body is found. This is a meaningful gap for an email 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 a single focused sentence with no filler. It immediately communicates the tool's purpose and key output distinction, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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 read tool with full schema coverage, the description gives the core idea but leaves out behavioral details that matter in an email context, such as whether the operation has side effects like marking the email as read. It also does not describe the output structure, which is notable because there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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?

The schema already provides full descriptions for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra semantic detail beyond mentioning text/HTML bodies, which partially aligns with the text_only parameter but does not elaborate on defaults or interactions between parameters.

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 ('Fetch') and a specific resource ('body of an email'), and the qualifier 'only' helps set it apart from sibling tools like get_email_headers. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from fetch_email, which could also return the body as part of a full message.

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 retrieving just the email body rather than headers or full messages, but it does not explicitly say when to prefer it over fetch_email or get_email_headers. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative-routing statements.

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