read_email

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states this is a read operation and specifies what is returned: plain-text body plus attachment metadata. It also documents the expected email_id format. It does not mention error behavior or explicitly state that no state changes occur, but 'read' and the output description cover the core behavior well.

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?

A single sentence delivers the tool's purpose, return contents, and parameter format with no wasted words. The core function is front-loaded, and the parameter clarification is packed efficiently into parentheses.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema available, the description is largely complete: it defines the input format and summarizes the return payload. It could add explicit usage routing or edge-case behavior, but the low complexity and presence of an output schema make the current definition sufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly by specifying the email_id format ('folder:uid') and providing a concrete example ('INBOX:1'), which adds meaning far beyond the schema's bare string type.

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 states a specific verb ('read'), a specific resource ('single email full content'), and clarifies the output composition ('plain text body + attachment metadata'). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_email_headers, get_attachments, and get_thread, which target headers, attachments, or thread context.

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 when to use the tool—when full content of a single email is needed—but gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which alternative to prefer. The sibling tools provide context, but the description itself does not name exclusions or alternatives.

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