email_list_drafts

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

Without annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as pagination (though max_results hints at it), ordering, performance, or whether the result includes only draft emails from the primary mailbox. No contradictions with annotations (none exist).

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?

Extremely concise at one sentence with no filler words. However, this conciseness sacrifices completeness; it could be more structured to add value without losing brevity.

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 list tool with one optional parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks information about return format, pagination behavior, and sorting, which would be helpful given no 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (max_results documented as 'Max drafts to return'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so 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 'List all draft emails' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('draft emails'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like email_search (which searches across types) and email_draft (which likely creates a draft).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like email_search. For example, it does not clarify that this lists only drafts, whereas email_search could find drafts among other results, nor does it mention any prerequisites.

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