List rejected e-mails

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and fails it. The only behavioral hint is the HTTP verb GET, implying a non-destructive read; nothing is said about pagination, default status filtering, or what a 'rejected' e-mail represents.

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 text is short but that brevity is under-specification rather than conciseness. A single endpoint fragment is not a usable, front-loaded description.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, no parameter documentation, and no behavioral detail. For a two-parameter list tool with an enum filter, the definition is entirely inadequate.

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 for the undocumented 'size' and 'status' parameters, and it does not. It gives no meaning for the enum values 'pending'/'overridden' or for the size limit.

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 is the bare HTTP path 'GET /rejected/list.', which merely restates the tool name and title in endpoint form. It conveys that the tool lists rejected e-mails but adds no scope, filtering, or differentiation from siblings such as reprocess_rejected_email.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance is given. The related sibling reprocess_rejected_email is never mentioned, so the agent gets no help deciding between viewing rejected e-mails and reprocessing them.

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