List Email Tests

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds material context beyond them: the monitoring:read token requirement, the account-scoped 'newest first' result ordering, and a rendering instruction to print report_url as a clickable link. It also disambiguates the scoring fields, noting scoring_version 2 is the one-decimal score.

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?

Single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the when-to-use condition before the mechanical details. Every clause carries information, though the packing of auth scope, ordering, return fields, and rendering advice into one block makes it heavier than ideal.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates every returned field (test_id, status, created_at, received_at, from_domain, score/out_of/scoring_version, dmarc_result, report_url). Combined with the auth and filtering guidance, an agent has everything needed to call and present results correctly.

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 parameters (limit, domain) are already fully documented including the 1..50 range, default 20, and the subdomain-counts-as-organization rule. The description restates these without adding new syntax or format detail, so the 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 and resource (list the account's own email tests), gives ordering (newest first) and scope (optionally filtered by From domain). It explicitly contrasts with the sibling get_email_test, so an agent can distinguish list-vs-detail without opening either schema.

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?

Opens with the triggering user intent ('asks about email tests they ran before, or how a sender's earlier tests scored') and names the alternative path: 'call get_email_test with a test_id for the full result.' It also states the required auth scope, so the agent knows the precondition for calling.

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