analyze_email_for_scheduling

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, so the bar is lower. The description adds behavioral context by explaining that it returns structured analysis to guide follow-up actions, and it clarifies that no scheduling resource is directly created. It does not contradict annotations.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. It avoids redundancy and clearly states purpose, output, and usage in a compact form.

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 an analysis tool with well-documented parameters and read-only annotations, the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's role in the scheduling workflow and the nature of the output, though a more specific outline of the structured analysis fields would improve completeness given the absence of an output schema.

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?

All three parameters (account, mailbox, email_id) have descriptions in the schema providing complete coverage. The tool description does not add specific parameter-level semantics beyond indicating the analysis context, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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's function: analyzing an email to detect calendar events and/or reminder-worthy content. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning as a pre-processing step for scheduling decisions, specifically referencing add_to_calendar and create_reminder as downstream actions.

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 explicitly says to use this tool as the first step before creating any scheduling resource, and it frames the output as a decision aid between add_to_calendar, create_reminder, both, or neither. This gives clear context and alternatives, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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