get_email_details

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

With no annotations, the description must fully reveal behavioral traits. It states that body and attachment metadata are included but omits other fields (headers, labels, etc.), error handling, auth requirements, or performance characteristics.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. No superfluous words, but slightly more detail (e.g., return format) could fit without bloat.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description must specify the return format. It mentions 'full details' but does not list what fields are included (headers, labels, etc.), leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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 coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for each parameter (user_id, email_id, body_offset, body_limit). The description adds context about body and attachments but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond 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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('full details of a specific Gmail email'), and mentions key outputs ('body and attachment metadata'), clearly differentiating from sibling tools like 'query_gmail_emails' or 'bulk_get_gmail_emails'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'bulk_get_gmail_emails' for multiple emails, 'query_gmail_emails' for search). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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