list_emails

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it discloses almost nothing: no mention of default ordering, pagination semantics (start/limit), whether results are headers-only or full content, or what listing at the account level means when folder_id is null. A list tool with these behaviors needs more than six words of transparency.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and it contains zero filler. It is efficient, though it leans toward under-specification rather than genuine conciseness — a minor structural deduction.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not the description's job, and the tool is structurally simple. Still, the description omits important operational context: pagination semantics, default folder behavior, and how listing differs from the sibling search_emails. Minimum viable for a basic list tool, but with clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does: 'account or folder' clarifies that account_id is required and folder_id narrows the scope. However, limit and start are left entirely unexplained despite being present in the schema, so the compensation is only partial.

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') with a clear resource ('emails') and identifies two scoping modes (account or folder), so an agent knows what the tool operates on. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related sibling search_emails, which matters because listing and searching overlap in intent.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of search_emails or how it relates to get_email_content. The scoping phrase 'in account or folder' implies a simple enumeration use case, but there are no exclusions or alternative routing, and with over 70 siblings an agent gets no decision support.

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