read_email

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful behavior about UIDs being permanent and unaffected by deletions, but does not disclose potential error handling, return format, or whether reading affects email state. This is moderate transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence provides necessary information. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple 2-parameter read tool, the description gives enough context: what it does, how to get input, and a key behavior. It does not explicitly state return contents, but the purpose is clear from the name and description. Missing edge-case details, but acceptable.

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 already provides full parameter descriptions (100% coverage). The description repeats schema info about UIDs being permanent, adding no meaningful new semantics beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool reads email content using UIDs, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_emails and search_emails by focusing on content retrieval and explicitly referencing how to obtain UIDs.

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 provides clear workflow context by instructing to get UIDs from list_emails or search_emails, implying this tool is used after those. It does not explicitly state exclusions or contrast with alternatives, but the reference to sibling tools gives sufficient usage guidance.

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