get_marketing_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only ('Fetch'), that include_content returns a large payload, and that draft defaults to True. This covers the most important behavioral traits an agent needs to avoid unintended expensive or wrong-version calls.

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 Purpose line is front-loaded, followed by a compact Args block. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague filler.

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 output schema exists, return values don't need explanation. The description covers the one required param, the two optional params, their defaults, and the key tradeoff of include_content. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly.

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%, so the description must fully compensate. It does: email_id is identified as a HubSpot email ID, include_content is explained as the full content/widgets tree with a size warning, and draft's True/False meaning is stated. All three parameters gain real semantic value beyond their schema titles.

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 opening line, 'Fetch one marketing email,' is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly distinguishes this single-item getter from sibling list_marketing_emails. It is immediately obvious what the tool does and which resource it targets.

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 gives clear param-level guidance: include_content should only be set when editing content, and draft controls whether to read the draft or live version. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool for listing or finding emails, but the usage context for the main decision points is unambiguous.

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