read_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the body format (text default, HTML optional) and the max_chars=0 default-limit behavior, but omits the notable side effect that mark_as_read defaults to true, and says nothing about permissions or response shape.

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 tight clauses with no filler: the read purpose comes first, followed by the account note and the download_attachment pointer. Well front-loaded, though a slight jumble between the return-value clause and the parameter notes.

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?

No output schema and no annotations means the description should carry everything, and it does cover body format and the max_chars default. However, the undisclosed mark_as_read behavior and the implicit folder parameter leave a meaningful gap for a 6-parameter tool.

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 uid, account (empty = default account), max_chars=0, and prefer_html, but leaves mark_as_read undocumented despite its default-true side effect; folder is left implicit. Roughly half the parameters get meaning, so it only partially compensates.

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 a specific verb+resource ('Lê um e-mail completo pelo UID') and enumerates what is returned: headers, body (text or HTML), and attachment list. This clearly distinguishes it from a raw-email fetch, though it never names get_raw_email as the contrasting sibling.

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?

It gives one useful routing hint – use download_attachment to save attachments – but provides no guidance on when to prefer this over get_raw_email, search_emails, or list_folders. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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