email_utils

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it delivers none. It does not state whether operations are pure/read-only, what each operation returns (booleans, formatted strings, arrays), whether validation is syntactic only or includes deliverability, or any limits beyond the schema's maxItems/maximum constraints.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the operation list appears immediately after the resource. It is efficient, though for a five-operation tool the brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal density.

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 6-parameter, 5-operation dispatcher with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It never explains what each operation produces or how the operations differ, leaving an agent to guess at return shapes and correct per-operation parameter pairing.

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 every parameter is already documented, including per-operation applicability for texto, emails, quantidade and tipo. The description only restates the operation names already present in the operacao enum, adding no semantics beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 the resource (emails) and enumerates the five concrete operations: gerar, validar, extrair, analisar, formatar. That is a specific, multi-operation purpose an agent can match to user intent. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings (cpf_utils, cnpj_utils, etc.), though the resource name alone largely does that job.

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 lists operations but never says when to use this tool versus another sibling utility, nor when a particular operation is appropriate. It also omits the obvious pairing rule that 'extrair' needs texto while 'validar/analisar/formatar' need the emails array, which is only inferable from parameter descriptions.

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