get_email_security_message

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, and it only barely implies a read operation via the word 'Get'. It does not state what happens when the postfix_id is not found, whether it returns raw message content or metadata, or what scope/authorization is required beyond the two IDs.

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 five-word sentence is maximally concise with zero filler, which is good. However, it is under-specified for the sibling context: one clarifying clause about what 'details' encompasses or how this differs from get_email_security_message_detections would earn its place and would not bloat the description.

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 two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the parameter side is covered by the schema, but the absence of an output schema means the description should hint at return semantics — 'details' is too undetermined. The real gap is ambiguity against get_email_security_message_detections, which an agent cannot resolve from this description, making it incomplete for safe tool selection.

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%, with both parameters documented as 'The account ID' and 'The message postfix ID', so the schema already carries the parameter semantics and the baseline of 3 applies. The description itself adds nothing about parameters, and does not clarify how an agent would obtain a valid postfix_id, but the schema meets the minimum bar.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and a resource ('email security message details'), so it is not a tautology and conveys a fetch operation. However, 'details' is vague about what is actually returned, and the very close sibling get_email_security_message_detections is not differentiated, leaving an agent unable to tell these two lookups apart from the text alone.

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 given for when to use this tool versus the many email_security siblings, particularly get_email_security_message_detections and list_email_security_investigate. The description offers no when-to-use context, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives, so the agent must guess which lookup is appropriate.

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