get_email_body

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'full email body' which suggests the return is complete, not a snippet, but does not clarify error behavior, authentication requirements, or response format. This is a minor gap given the simplicity of the operation.

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 one concise sentence with no redundant information. Every word earns its place, succinctly conveying the tool's purpose.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It clearly states what is retrieved and how to identify the target. A brief note about return format or edge cases would be helpful, but it is sufficiently complete for effective tool selection.

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 100% coverage for the single parameter, including 'Message ID from search results'. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond restating 'by message ID', so it does not improve upon the schema.

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 tool's function: retrieving the full email body using a message ID. It uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (email body), and the 'by message ID' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_attachments or search_emails.

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 provides clear context by indicating the tool operates on a message ID, implying it should be used after obtaining an ID from search results or similar. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the purpose is distinct enough among siblings that usage is unambiguous.

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