Get Email

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

Without annotations, the description discloses that it returns the full body in an LLM-safe format, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention any other behaviors like authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. It is adequate but not rich.

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 sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and key details, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has only two required parameters and no output schema. The description explains the return format (full body in LLM-safe format), which is sufficient for a simple retrieval operation. It could mention the absence of pagination or filtering, but overall it is complete for this level of complexity.

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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters, including example formats (e.g., 'eml_...', 'ibx_...'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action (get), the resource (single email by ID), and a distinctive feature (LLM-safe format). It differentiates from siblings like search_emails or list_threads which retrieve multiple emails or threads.

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 use when you have an email ID, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_emails or list_threads for other scenarios. No exclusion criteria or sibling comparisons are provided.

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