list_received_email_attachments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly communicates that the tool returns metadata and download URLs rather than raw file content, and the GET method plus 'List' imply a non-mutating operation. It does not detail authentication, pagination, or error behavior, but for a simple listing tool the core behavior is transparent.

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, front-loaded sentence conveys the resource, action, return format, and endpoint with zero filler. Every element earns its place.

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 tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description provides the necessary action, resource, endpoint, and return nature. It does not mention edge cases like empty attachment lists or URL expiry, but the information given is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in the common case.

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?

The schema already documents the single required parameter with 100% coverage, which sets a baseline of 3. The description adds useful semantic context by tying the id to the received email and embedding it in the endpoint, helping distinguish it from attachment-level ids used by sibling tools.

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 ('List'), a specific resource ('a received email's attachments'), and the output form ('metadata with download URLs'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_email_attachments and get_received_email_attachment by the 'received' qualifier and the explicit endpoint.

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 phrase 'a received email's attachments' gives clear context for when this tool should be used, and the GET endpoint reinforces that it is a read-only listing operation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.

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