ghl_conversation_get_email_message

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 clear. The description adds the endpoint and OAuth scopes, which are useful but not critical. No contradictions with annotations. Missing details about error handling or rate limits, but annotations cover the main behavioral traits.

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 somewhat verbose due to the technical note about the spec gap, which is important but could be integrated more concisely. It is well-structured with a clear summary line, but could be streamlined.

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 tool has no output schema, the description could elaborate on what the response contains (e.g., email details). Sibling tools like ghl_conversation_get_message exist, but the description does not clarify the distinction. The annotations cover safety, but completeness is adequate for a simple retrieval tool.

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% for the single required 'id' parameter. The description adds context about why the parameter exists despite a spec gap, explaining it's a path parameter inferred from the URL template. This adds meaningful insight beyond the schema description.

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 states 'Get email by Id' and includes the endpoint and OAuth scopes, making it clear it retrieves a specific email message. However, it does not specify what fields are returned, which would strengthen purpose clarity. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like ghl_conversation_get_message by specifying 'email'.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ghl_conversation_get_message or ghl_conversation_get_messages. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria are given. The only extra context is the spec gap explanation, which is not usage guidance.

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