get_emails

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds a valuable behavioral note: 'Does NOT mark emails as seen.' It also discloses the default format behavior ('text' strips HTML), which is useful for agents expecting raw content. No contradiction with 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 compact and front-loaded: first states the core action and constraint, then gives a usage rationale, and finally notes behavioral side-effects. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant filler.

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 100% schema description coverage, readOnly annotations, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for a batch-read tool. It could have added a note about the return structure (e.g., object keyed by email ID) but this is already implied by 'full content'. The description is adequate for the tool's complexity.

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%, and the schema already describes each parameter thoroughly (ids, format, account, mailbox, maxLength). The description mentions the 'max 20' limit and the 'text' default, but these are already in the schema. It adds no significant new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource as 'full content of multiple emails' with an explicit max of 20. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_email by highlighting batch operation and from list_emails/search_emails by mentioning 'full content', making the tool's 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 states when to use this tool: 'when triaging or summarising several emails' and compares it to calling get_email repeatedly. However, it doesn't mention when not to use it relative to other siblings like search_emails or list_emails, leaving some implicit context gap.

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