email_channel_read

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: what data surfaces per action (DNS records with verification state, inboxes with assigned agents, recent inbound/outbound events), though it says nothing about pagination, auth, or freshness beyond 'recent'.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the action breakdown. Every clause adds information with no 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?

For a read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, action mapping, and returned data categories. Only minor operational details (default mode behavior, how 'recent' is bounded) are left entirely to the 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 coverage is 75% and the schema already explains mode, limit (max 100), and orgId. The description earns credit by mapping each action enum value to its returned content, which the bare enum alone would not convey.

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 ('Read the email channel setup of the workspace') and enumerates the three data domains it exposes. The read semantics and the corresponding email_channel_write sibling make the distinction obvious without opening either schema.

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 action list tells the agent exactly which action to use for domains, inboxes, or events, which is real routing guidance. It does not state when to avoid this tool or explicitly point to email_channel_write for mutations, 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.