listEmails

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape (subject, sender, date, read status). However, it omits pagination mechanics (only a 'limit' is mentioned, no offset/cursor) and any permission or rate-limit context, which matters for a 9-parameter listing tool.

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?

Two tight sentences that front-load the operation and then the result shape, with no filler. Slightly compact given the schema's complexity, but nothing is wasted.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core operation and return fields but leaves most parameters and pagination semantics unexplained. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 only 22%, so the description must compensate, yet it only touches folder, limit, and readStatus. The sender/recipient, subject, date-range, and hasAttachments parameters (which include an ISO 8601 format requirement) get no mention in the description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List emails from a specific folder') and adds scope qualifiers (pagination, read status filtering). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling searchEmails, so an agent must infer which listing tool applies.

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 implies when the tool is useful (listing a folder's contents with filtering) but never states when to prefer it over searchEmails or getEmailDetail, and gives no prerequisites. Usage is left to inference.

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