email_get

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility for behavior disclosure. It doesn't state response format, whether it returns the full email body, attachment metadata, or just headers. As a GET operation it's likely non-destructive, but nothing confirms this or explains any side effects (e.g., marking as read).

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 one short sentence with no waste. It is appropriately structured and front-loaded. However, it borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness, as it says so little it needs supplementation elsewhere.

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?

For a modest tool with 2 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It doesn't cover what data is returned, how accountId and emailId relate, or behavioral specifics. With zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description should carry more informational weight.

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%, meaning the description must explain both parameters (accountId and emailId). The description does not mention parameters at all. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory (emailId and accountId), but there's no guidance on format, meaning, or relationship between them beyond what the raw names suggest.

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 'Get a single email by ID' has a clear verb+resource (get email) and states the scope (single email by ID). It distinguishes from siblings like email_search and email_list_accounts, though it doesn't explicitly mention what is returned or how it differs from email_get_thread. It's a clear but minimal statement.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like email_get_thread, email_search, or email_get_attachment. There is no context about when this is appropriate or what prerequisites exist. The description implies one should use it when you have a specific email ID, but this is only implied.

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