read_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it reads full content and returns specific fields, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's read-only (implied by 'read' but not explicit). It adds some behavioral context but misses key operational traits.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by args, returns, and an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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?

Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and returns, but could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like auth or errors. The output schema reduces the need to explain return values in detail.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains email_id as 'Email ID to read (from list_emails)' and folder as 'Mail folder (default: INBOX)', adding meaning beyond the schema's basic titles. However, it doesn't detail folder options or email_id format, leaving some gaps.

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 specific action ('Read the full content') and resource ('a specific email'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_emails (which lists emails) or search_emails (which searches). It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 by mentioning 'from list_emails' for email_id, suggesting it should be used after listing emails, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_emails or provide exclusions. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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