hey_list_collection_emails

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing the caching behavior ('Returns cached results unless force_refresh=true'), which the annotations do not convey. It stops short of stating auth needs, rate limits, or return shape, but this is useful added context.

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 with zero filler; the primary purpose is front-loaded and the caching caveat follows. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only, collection-scoped list tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers purpose and the one non-obvious behavior (caching). Pagination and return format are handled by the schema, so little is missing, though it could note the collection_id dependency more explicitly.

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 100%, so all four parameters (page, limit, collection_id, force_refresh) are already documented in the schema, including defaults and ranges. The description only restates the force_refresh semantics already present in the schema, adding no new parameter meaning beyond the baseline.

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 in a specific collection'), which clearly identifies the operation. It separates itself from plain list_email indirectly via the 'collection' scope, but never names a sibling collection-vs-label distinction, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as hey_list_emails or hey_list_label_emails. The scoping is inferable from the tool name but the description offers no routing help.

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