email_document

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

Annotations indicate the operation is not read-only and not destructive, and the description's 'Send' action is consistent with that. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations—it does not mention side effects, prerequisites like configured mail accounts, whether an email is actually dispatched, or what happens on failure.

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, information-dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action ('Send'), the resource ('document'), and the recipients, and every word contributes to meaning.

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 straightforward send action with fully documented parameters, the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks guidance about prerequisites, side effects, or return/confirmation behavior, which would help an agent call it with full confidence.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 because the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds nothing about parameter meaning or format beyond what the schema states, such as comma-separated addresses or the archive-version default.

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 ('Send'), a clear resource ('document'), and a delivery method ('via email to one or more recipients'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are mostly document retrieval, editing, or mail-account management tools.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as creating share links, bulk downloading, or other document-sharing mechanisms. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer its place among the many document-related sibling tools.

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