get_email_disk_usage

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Beyond the word 'Get' implying a read, it says nothing about what 'detailed' consumption includes, whether a nonexistent address errors or returns zeros, or what permissions are required.

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 sentence with the scope ('for a specific email address') placed after the action, and no filler words. It is efficient, though slightly more specificity about the measure (quota vs. actual usage) would have earned the extra point.

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 one-parameter read tool this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema and no annotations the description should say at least roughly what comes back (bytes, quota, percentage). The agent knows the input but not the shape or limits of the result.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already documenting the email format (user@domain.com). The description adds no constraints such as whether the address must be an existing account on this server, so 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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('disk space consumption') scoped to a single email address, which is meaningfully narrower than the account-wide get_disk_usage sibling. It does not explicitly name that sibling, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 per-email scoping implies when to use it (checking one mailbox's footprint), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to get_disk_usage/get_account_stats for account-level figures. The agent must infer the division of labor from sibling names alone.

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