emails_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get details' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what the response format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, straightforward sentence with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it's arguably too concise given the lack of detail needed for a tool with three parameters and no annotations, slightly under-specifying rather than being optimally efficient.

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 the complexity (3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain parameter semantics, behavioral traits like error cases or response format, and usage context relative to siblings, making it inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without additional guessing.

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 for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'specific email' which hints at the emailId parameter but doesn't explain its format or source. It doesn't address the properties or associations parameters at all, leaving their purpose and usage unclear despite three total parameters.

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 'Get details of a specific email' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('email'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'details' entail and doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling email tools (like emails_list or emails_search) beyond the 'specific' qualifier, which is somewhat vague.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an email ID), exclusions (e.g., not for bulk operations), or direct comparisons to sibling tools like emails_list or emails_search, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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