hey_list_label_emails

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations do not carry: results come from a cache by default and are only re-fetched when force_refresh=true. It omits pagination behavior and return shape, but adds real value beyond the structured fields.

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, zero waste, with the core operation stated first and the caching caveat second. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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, open-world list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers the essential non-obvious behavior (caching). It is nearly complete; the only gap is what a result looks like and pagination limits, which the schema partially covers.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description contributes semantics the schema does not: it explains the consequence of force_refresh ('returns cached results unless...') rather than merely restating 'bypass cache'. label_id, page and limit are left to the schema, which documents them adequately.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource with a clear scope qualifier ('emails with a specific label'), which distinguishes it from the broader hey_list_emails. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast with the closest siblings (hey_list_emails, hey_list_collection_emails), so differentiation must be inferred from the scope phrase.

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?

Usage is implied by the scope ('with a specific label'), and the caching clause hints at when to set force_refresh, but the description never states when to prefer this over hey_list_emails, hey_list_collection_emails, or hey_search. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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