email_logs_summary

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

With no annotations, the description needs to disclose the tool's behavior, but 'Email log summary' only hints that it produces a summary. It does not state whether it is read-only, what time range or scope it covers, whether authentication is required, or what the output contains.

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 short but under-pecified rather than effectively concise. It is a noun phrase with no actionable structure and does not front-load any information beyond what the tool name already conveys.

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?

Even with zero parameters and an output schema present, an agent selecting among many email-related tools needs more than a tautological fragment. The definition fails to explain what kind of summary is provided or how it differs from email_logs and email_logs_user.

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 tool has 0 parameters and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies here.

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 'Email log summary' essentially restates the tool name with underscores removed. It lacks a clear verb or resource-action structure, so an agent cannot tell what kind of summary is produced or what data it covers.

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 instead of siblings such as email_logs or email_logs_user. The agent is left to infer that this is for summaries rather than raw log retrieval, but the description never says so.

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