get_email_raw

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

Describes output format (base64-encoded), fidelity (bit-identical), and constraint (inbound only). No annotations exist, so description carries full burden; it covers key behaviors but omits auth/permission details.

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?

Four sentences, each purposeful. No redundancy, front-loaded with core action, use case, and alternative. Highly concise.

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 output schema, description explains output format and properties. Covers limitations and use case. Lacks error codes or permission model, but sufficient for a simple retrieval 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minor context (message_id must be inbound) but doesn't elaborate on parameters beyond schema.

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 tool retrieves raw RFC-822 bytes of an inbound email, base64-encoded. It distinguishes from sibling 'get_email' by explicitly noting that 'for display/threading, use get_email instead.'

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('cryptographic verification') and when not ('inbound messages only; outbound returns 404'), and provides an alternative tool for display/threading.

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