get_emails

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

Annotations already declare read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds meaning by disclosing the count limit ('1-10') and the 'ordered partial results' trait, which goes beyond the annotations. This additional context is valuable for managing expectations about result set size and ordering.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core action and key constraints. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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 an output schema assumed present, return values need no explanation. The description covers the essential batch count and ordering, but omits any explanation of identity semantics and potential failure conditions, leaving some gaps for a new agent.

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%. The description does not explain the 'identities' parameter structure or the meaning of fields (account_id, mailbox, uid_validity, uid). It only says 'exact identities', which adds little beyond the schema's array definition.

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 ('Read') and resource ('plain text') with precise constraints ('1-10 exact identities') and notes result ordering ('ordered partial results'). It clearly distinguishes itself from singular get_email and get_email_html via the batch capability and plain-text format.

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 usage for batch plain-text retrieval, but does not explicitly mention when to prefer it over get_email or get_email_html. The '1-10' range hints at batch use, but there are no explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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