get_email_status

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

Annotations already mark it as readOnly and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating 'Does NOT mark the email as seen,' which is a critical side effect not implied by annotations. It also mentions performance ('much cheaper'), adding depth.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words, making it highly efficient.

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 the tool's low complexity (3 simple params, no output schema), the description completely covers purpose, usage context, and behavioral note. No gaps remain for an agent to misunderstand.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for all 3 parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate as the schema already carries the full semantic load.

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 ('Get') and resource ('current read/flag/label state of an email') and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_email' by stating it fetches state without body. This makes the tool's purpose highly clear and differentiated.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it is 'much cheaper than get_email' for state checks, useful to confirm 'mark_email' results, and notes it does not mark as seen. This tells the agent when to prefer this tool over alternatives.

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