get-shared-mailbox-message

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

Annotations already communicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail beyond the schema: the response includes the full message body, which is useful in the absence of 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?

A single sentence with no redundant phrasing; the key facts (single message, shared mailbox, full body) are front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 single-get tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description is sufficient to invoke it correctly. The only minor gap is the absence of routing guidance versus get-mail-message and the list variant, but the tool name and sibling list compensate.

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%, so mailbox, messageId, and select are already documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the resource type, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Describes a specific operation: retrieving one message from a shared mailbox, and notes it includes the full body. The 'single' qualifier and 'shared-mailbox' resource clearly distinguish it from list-shared-mailbox-messages and get-mail-message.

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 phrase 'single shared-mailbox message' implies the tool is for a targeted fetch rather than listing, so usage is inferable. However, no alternatives or exclusion conditions are mentioned (e.g., use get-mail-message for user mailboxes or list-shared-mailbox-messages for multiple messages).

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