Get Email

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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds value by detailing body truncation at 50,000 characters, caching freshness (15 min fresh, 1 hour stale), and the effect of force_refresh. No contradiction.

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 well-structured, using emojis for visual cues, bullet points for clarity, and front-loading the key purpose. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

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 7 parameters, presence of output schema, and annotations, the description is thorough. It covers return values including _cache_status and _cached_at, and explains caching behavior, making it complete for the tool's 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explains all 7 parameters: email_id, account_id, include_body, body_max_length, include_attachments, use_cache, and force_refresh, including defaults and purpose. This fully compensates 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 it retrieves detailed information about a specific email, specifying it's read-only and safe for unsupervised use. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like email_list and email_get_attachment by focusing on a single email with full details.

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 guidance on caching behavior and when to use force_refresh. It also implies safe usage (read-only, unsupervised). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives like email_list.

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