email_autoresponders_list

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

The verb 'List' clearly signals a read-only operation, which is useful behavioral context. However, with no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does not disclose whether any special permissions are required, how impersonation affects results, or whether there are any domain ownership constraints.

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 concise, front-loads the main purpose in a single sentence, and keeps argument explanations compact. It avoids fluff, though the argument block is largely redundant with the schema.

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 two-parameter list operation, the description is minimally adequate: it names the operation and both parameters, and the output schema covers return values. It lacks usage guidance, alternative routing, and deeper behavioral context, so it is not fully 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains 'domain' and clarifies that 'impersonate' means the owning user, which adds some meaning beyond the schema's bare titles, but the explanations are minimal and partly tautological ('domain: Domain').

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 states a specific verb ('List') and a concrete resource ('autoresponders on a domain'), making the primary purpose clear. It does not, however, differentiate itself from sibling tools like email_vacation_list or email_forwarders_list, which could be confused with autoresponder-related operations.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no exclusions or preferred conditions. The description only restates the operation without explaining the context in which an agent should select it.

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