m365_mail_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the behavioral detail 'including full body', which tells the agent the response will contain the email body content beyond just metadata—an important expectation for a read operation.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no redundant or filler words. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 low complexity (one required parameter, no output schema, high annotation coverage), the description fully covers what the agent needs: it can read a specific email by ID and expect the full body. The annotation and sibling context fill any remaining gaps, making this description complete for this tool.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter 'messageId' with the description 'Email message ID'. The tool description does not add any further semantics about the ID format or how to obtain it, so it meets the baseline but no more.

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 uses a specific verb 'Read' with the resource 'email' and adds scope 'by ID, including full body'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like m365_mail_list (which lists emails) and m365_mail_search (which searches), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool is for reading a specific email when you know its ID, providing clear context for use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'by ID' phrasing effectively differentiates it from list and search tools, so it meets the 'clear context' bar.

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