emails_batch_read

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 states it's a read operation, implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what the return format looks like. For a batch operation with complex input structure, this leaves significant gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity and front-loads the core functionality.

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 batch read tool with 1 parameter (but complex nested structure), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the parameter semantics, return values, error conditions, or behavioral constraints that would be needed for proper agent usage.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description mentions 'multiple email records' but doesn't explain the 'inputs' parameter structure, the 'id' field meaning, or the purpose of 'properties' and 'associations' arrays. It adds minimal value beyond what's inferred from the tool name.

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 verb ('Read') and resource ('multiple email records'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from single-read operations by specifying 'multiple... in a single request', though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other batch operations like emails_batch_archive or emails_batch_update among its siblings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when batch reading is preferable to individual reads (e.g., emails_get) or other batch operations, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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