get_email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns email-specific fields (subject, address, body, timing), but it does not explicitly confirm side-effect-free behavior, error conditions, or permissions. The verb 'Get' implies read-only, but explicit disclaimers are absent.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The parameter explanation is structured separately and is free of fluff. Every sentence earns its place, and the length is appropriate for a one-parameter read operation.

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 get operation with an output schema, the description covers purpose, return value highlights, and parameter details. It could be more complete by explicitly stating read-only behavior or differentiation from get_activity, but these are minor gaps given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains the 'name' parameter with format examples ('ACT00123') and provenance (field from list_emails). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare string type in the schema, making the parameter self-documenting.

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 verb ('Get'), resource ('email activity'), and scope ('single... by its ID'). It also lists email-specific return fields, distinguishing it from generic get_activity and list-style siblings like list_emails. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 usage: when you have an email activity ID and need full details. It also provides a hint about obtaining the ID from list_emails. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as get_activity, so guidance is mostly 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.