get_email

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral value beyond those by disclosing that the response includes attachments and thread details, which helps the agent set expectations about the returned data without needing an output schema.

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 front-loads the action and resource, then adds return details, making it easy to parse and act on.

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 fetch-by-ID tool, this is complete: the schema documents the required parameter, annotations cover the safety profile, and the description clarifies what the response contains. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, with the single 'id' parameter clearly described as 'Archived email ID'. The tool description adds the phrase 'by ID' but does not provide additional semantic details beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get'), the resource ('one archived email'), and the selection method ('by ID'). Mentioning 'including attachments and thread details' further distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_emails or list_archived_emails_for_source.

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 'by ID' phrasing provides a clear context for when to use this tool: when the agent already has an archived email ID. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools for unknown IDs, but the contrast with search_emails is strongly implied, making the usage context clear if not exhaustive.

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