sender_history

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'dall'indice locale' (from the local index), hinting at a read operation, but does not clearly state that it is read-only, whether it requires authentication, or what happens if the sender is not found. This lack of explicit safety or side-effect information is a significant gap.

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 key purpose and output. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple read tool.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (2 params, no annotations, no output schema), the description provides a reasonable overview by listing the returned data (tone, topics, recent threads). However, it lacks parameter explanations and explicit usage guidance, making it only minimally complete. It is not as sparse as a bare tautology but falls short of a fully self-sufficient description.

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, and the tool description does not mention the 'email' or 'account_id' parameters at all. Since the schema itself only provides basic types and defaults, the description adds no semantic meaning to the parameters, leaving the agent without guidance on how to fill them correctly.

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 clearly states the tool provides sender history and profile from a local index, including tone, topics, and recent threads, for context in composing replies. While it includes a specific verb ('Storico e profilo') and resource ('mittente'), it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like 'list_messages' or 'search_mail', so it misses the top score.

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 phrase 'contesto per rispondere nel modo giusto' implies using this tool when crafting a reply that needs sender-specific context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternative tools for related tasks, so the usage guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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