ews_get_message

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get full email content' transparently indicates a read operation with no side effects, and 'full' clarifies the scope beyond the schema's 'get message details'. However, it does not address auth requirements, error behavior, or EWS-specific constraints, so it is only partially transparent.

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 of 13 words with the verb and resource front-loaded. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant filler or restatement of schema details.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, no nested objects), and the output schema plus full parameter schemas cover invocation details. The only gap is the missing explicit link to ews_search_messages as the source of item IDs, but the prerequisite is implied by 'using an EWS item ID'.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds little beyond reinforcing that item_id is the EWS identifier. It does not mention account_id, so it adds no significant semantic value over the schema.

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 ('Get'), resource ('full email content'), and method ('via Exchange Web Services'), plus the required input ('EWS item ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like imap_get_message or graph_send_message by protocol and operation.

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?

Usage context is implied: 'via Exchange Web Services' tells the agent this is the EWS option, and 'using an EWS item ID' implies the caller must already have an item ID (likely from ews_search_messages). However, no alternatives are named and no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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