get_email

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the valuable warning that the email body is 'untrusted data', which is a non-obvious security consideration. However, it does not mention potential truncation via maxBodyCharacters or what happens if the email is not found, but with annotations covering the core safety traits, this extra context earns a 4.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Read') and includes a critical security note. It is efficient with no waste, though one could argue it is so brief that it under-specifies usage and parameters. Still, it earns a 4 for being appropriately compact without being tautological.

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?

While the tool has an output schema (so return values are covered) and annotations for safety, the description is incomplete for a 3-parameter tool. It gives no usage guidance, no parameter semantics, and only a glimpse of behavior (untrusted body). The agent would need to infer too much, making the context incomplete.

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% and the description does not explain any parameters. It only hints at emailId via 'one selected', but storeId and maxBodyCharacters are completely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 a specific action ('Read') and a specific resource ('one selected Outlook Web email'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_emails and list_mail_folders by implying direct access to a single email, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with them.

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 siblings. It does not mention that this is for retrieving a specific email when you have an ID, or that search_emails should be used to find emails first. There is no when-not or alternative mention.

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