get_email_with_content

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic operation. It does not disclose potential side effects (none expected as read-only), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 front-loaded with a concise summary followed by a well-structured parameter list. It avoids unnecessary text but could be slightly more compact by not repeating defaults that are already in the schema.

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?

The description explains all parameters and indicates the return type (detailed email info with content preview). With an output schema present, further detail on return values is not needed. Missing edge cases like empty results or errors.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description adds essential meaning for all 5 parameters, including examples, defaults, and special values (e.g., 'use "All" for all mailboxes'). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 the specific action 'Search for emails by subject keyword' and the output 'full content preview'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_emails (broader) or search_by_sender.

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 for subject keyword searches but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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