Get email by Id

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description only adds the HTTP GET path, which mostly restates the annotations and does not disclose response shape, required authorization, or any other behavioral details.

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 very short and front-loaded, but the main phrase is a direct repetition of the title. The endpoint path is the only genuinely additive piece; the rest is redundant.

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 read-only fetch tool with no output schema, the description should at least state what is returned, such as the email message details, headers, or body. It does not, and it also fails to clarify how this relates to sibling message tools, leaving the agent with only the bare endpoint.

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 input schema is empty, and with zero parameters the baseline is 4. The description does add some value by exposing the {id} path parameter in the endpoint, signaling that an identifier is required even though the schema does not list 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?

The description restates the title verbatim and adds the REST path. It clearly identifies the resource as an email message retrieved by ID, but it does not explain what an 'email' is in this context or how this tool differs from siblings like conversations_get_message or conversations_get_messages.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains several related message-fetching tools, but the description gives no conditions, exclusions, or selection criteria.

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