get_email_status

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it does not mark the email as seen and is cheaper than fetching a full email. This goes beyond annotation hints to clarify side effects and performance.

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?

Three succinct sentences front-load the primary purpose, then add usage guidance and a side-effect caveat. No wasted words.

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 low-complexity read tool with fully specified params and good annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, side-effect nuance, and alternative. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by naming the returned state dimensions (read/flag/label).

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 are described in the schema with clear provenance (account from list_accounts, emailId from list_emails/search_emails, mailbox path default). The description doesn't add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves email state metadata (read/flag/label) without fetching the body, differentiating it from get_email. The verb 'Get' and specific resource target make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly recommends using this tool over get_email when only state is needed, and mentions confirming mark_email results. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names an alternative.

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