MCP Email Service

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by specifying the requirement for IMAP connectivity and that it downloads 'latest message content,' which hints at network dependency and freshness. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, permissions, or what happens if connectivity fails, leaving gaps for a tool with network operations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds a crucial prerequisite in the second. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it efficiently structured and appropriately sized.

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 and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and a key prerequisite (IMAP connectivity), but for a tool that likely returns complex data (email body and attachments), it lacks details on output format, error cases, or behavioral nuances like caching or performance, leaving room for improvement in context.

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 the schema already documents all parameters (email_id, folder, account_id) with descriptions. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 ('Get detailed content'), the resource ('a specific email'), and the scope ('including body and attachments'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_email_headers (headers only) or get_email_attachments (attachments only). It uses precise verbs and resource identifiers.

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 specifying 'Requires IMAP connectivity to download the latest message content,' which provides context about prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_email_headers or get_email_attachments, nor does it mention exclusions or direct comparisons to siblings.

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