read_email

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 effectively describes key behaviors: it retrieves email content and 'Automatically marks unread emails as read,' which is a critical side effect not obvious from the tool name. It lacks details on error handling or rate limits, but covers the main operational behavior.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with three concise sentences that each add value: the first states the purpose, the second reveals a key behavioral trait, and the third provides usage guidance. There is no wasted text.

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 tool's moderate complexity (read operation with side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, and usage context, but lacks details on return values (e.g., structure of the response) and error conditions, which would be helpful for an agent.

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 both parameters ('email_id' and 'mailbox_id') fully. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or usage tips, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the full content'), resource ('a specific email'), and scope ('including the markdown body and attachment metadata'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'check_inbox' (which lists emails) and 'send_email' (which sends emails).

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Use the email ID from check_inbox results'), establishing a workflow dependency. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., vs. 'search_identity' for finding emails).

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