pipedrive_get_deal_emails

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying that it returns metadata only (not full body), and that the full body is only accessible for the user's own mailbox. The annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent, but the description clarifies the scope and limitation.

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 only two sentences, but it effectively communicates the core purpose, scope, and a key limitation. Every sentence serves a purpose with no unnecessary words.

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 that the tool has no output schema, the description states it returns 'metadata', which is adequate for an agent to understand what to expect. It also references the sibling tool for full body. However, the specific fields in the metadata are not described, but this is acceptable for a read-only metadata retrieval tool.

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?

All three parameters are described in the input schema with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 retrieves email messages linked to a deal, with company-wide scope (all users' emails). It distinguishes itself from siblings like pipedrive_get_mail_message by noting that this tool returns only metadata.

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?

Provides clear context for when to use this tool (to get metadata of emails linked to a deal) and points to an alternative (pipedrive_get_mail_message) for full body, but only for the user's own mailbox. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the alternative is well-motivated.

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