zoho_get_email_headers

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the concrete header payload (Message-ID, References, Received, authentication results), which gives useful context, but says nothing about failure modes, missing headers, or the raw/parsed behavioral difference.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the parenthetical enumeration earns its place by telling the agent what comes back. It is arguably a touch thin for a tool with no output schema, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by naming the fields returned, which is the key missing piece. It omits any note on when headers are unavailable or how raw=true/false changes the payload, but for a simple read tool this is close to complete.

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 folderId, messageId and raw are already fully documented by the schema, including the 64-bit precision caveat. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the baseline expectation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the internet message headers of an email') and enumerates the header types returned, so an agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings like zoho_get_email_metadata or zoho_get_original_message, which likely also expose header-adjacent data.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as zoho_get_email_metadata or zoho_get_email_content. The listed header names hint at diagnostic/authentication uses, but the agent must infer that entirely.

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