Get Student Emails

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose the backing endpoint (/auth/mail/) which hints at session authentication, and it enumerates returned attributes. It never states that the operation is read-only, that a valid session/cookie is required (siblings check_auth_status and set_session_cookies suggest this matters), or how ordering and pagination behave.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with a clear verb and scope, no filler or hedging. The enumeration of returned fields ('read/unread flags, sender, date, and subject') is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, which is the only real waste.

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 read tool with a full output schema, the core purpose is covered and return values need no explanation here. However, with zero annotation coverage the description should have addressed auth/session requirements and result ordering or pagination, both of which are absent and relevant given the sibling tools.

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 both limit and folder are already fully documented including defaults and allowed folder values. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema – it never mentions filtering by folder or capping results at all, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('message list from university email') plus the endpoint path, which clearly separates it from single-message or send siblings. It does not name read_email_message or send_student_email explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied by 'message list' – an agent can guess this is the listing counterpart to read_email_message, but the description never says when to use this versus those siblings or what prerequisites apply. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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