get_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does so for the most important trait: it flags the body as UNTRUSTED third-party text and instructs the agent to treat it as data, which is a genuine prompt-injection guardrail. It stops short of stating whether reading has side effects (e.g., whether it marks the email processed) or any permission/rate constraints.

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?

Three sentences, zero padding, and the highest-risk information (untrusted body) is placed after a front-loaded purpose statement so it reads naturally without burying the point.

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?

An output schema exists, so return details needn't be spelled out, and the safety warning covers the biggest behavioral unknown. The remaining gap is operational: how to source email_id and whether the read mutates state, neither of which is addressed.

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 coverage is 0%, so email_id is undocumented in structured fields, and the description does not explain its format or where to obtain it (presumably from list_new_emails). It at least makes clear the tool operates on one specific email, but does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read one email") and even enumerates what comes back: sender, plain-text body, sender's contact id, and last few emails on the same case. It distinguishes itself from list_new_emails by being a single-item read, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for fetching one email when it already has an id. There is no statement of when to prefer it over list_new_emails or find_contact, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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