get_email_draft

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds beyond that by disclosing the return scope (full recipient, subject, body) and flagging that the draft is private/sensitive content, which matters for handling.

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 tight sentence with the action and returned fields front-loaded and zero padding. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. Purpose, usage context, and sensitivity are covered; only draft_id semantics are left implicit.

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% and the single required parameter (draft_id) is undocumented in both schema and description. The identifier is fairly self-evident, so this lands at the baseline rather than lower, but the description adds no format or scoping detail for it.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (email draft) plus the exact fields returned (recipient, subject, body), which distinguishes it from update_email_draft and export_email_draft. An agent can tell what this fetches without opening the schema.

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?

"before editing or exporting" gives a clear context that routes the agent to this tool ahead of the update/export siblings, effectively naming the adjacent workflows. It stops short of an explicit when-not or a named-alternative clause, so it is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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