get_user_reader_emails

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the privacy constraint ('readers who opted to share them with you') and the cross-book/course scope. However, it does not mention authentication, response format, rate limits, or errors; for a simple getter this is a moderate but acceptable 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, the resource, and the scope compactly.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should map parameters to behavior and differentiate from siblings like get_book_reader_emails and get_interested_readers. It establishes scope but leaves type semantics and sibling boundaries largely implicit.

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, but it never explains the required username parameter or the type enum (all/book/course). The phrase 'across all your books/courses' hints at scope but does not clarify how type filters results. An agent would be uncertain what value to pass for type.

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 names a specific resource and action: 'Get emails of readers who opted to share them with you'. The scope 'across all your books/courses' clearly differentiates this from sibling get_book_reader_emails, which is likely scoped to a single book.

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 gives clear context for when to use it: whenever reader emails are needed across all books or courses. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the cross-library scope strongly implies this is the aggregate counterpart to book-specific tools.

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