list_email_logs

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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true annotations, the safety profile is already disclosed. The description adds no extra behavioral details beyond what the name and annotations imply (e.g., no mention of default limit, filtering behavior, or return format). It neither contradicts annotations nor offers significant additional context, so a middle score is appropriate.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no filler or redundant information. Every word 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 list operation with four optional parameters and no output schema, the combination of a clear description, full schema coverage, and read-only annotations is sufficient. It does not state explicit pagination or default behaviors, but these are not critical for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, so a slight deduction for lacking detail like 'default 25' is warranted.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters (limit, state, subject, recipient). The description itself does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies a clear resource ('outbound email log entries') with a stated purpose ('to track sent/failed emails'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_email_log (singular) and list_email_templates (different resource).

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 description implies usage context: it is for tracking sent/failed outbound emails. It does not explicitly reference alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the purpose clause provides clear context for when this tool would be appropriate, falling short of explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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