list_email_logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose useful traits: results are paginated, limited to the last 90 days, and each item contains the listed fields. It does not mention ordering or explicitly say it is read-only, but 'log' and the field list make the read behavior clear.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The scope and item composition are front-loaded, and every sentence adds information.

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?

This is a simple read-only listing with two optional paging parameters, and the description covers the data window and returned fields. It lacks a mention of any pagination metadata in the response, but the schema's page/per_page defaults make the call usable with no further context.

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 0%, but the description's 'Paginated' at least signals why page and per_page exist. The parameter names and schema constraints (defaults, minimum, maximum) are self-explanatory, so the lack of deeper prose is not a major blocker.

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 identifies a specific resource (email-forwarding log) and scope (last 90 days), plus the fields returned in each item. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_aliases and list_exposure_events, though it uses a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb like 'retrieves'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over list_exposure_events, get_dashboard_stats, or other log-like siblings. The 90-day coverage and pagination provide context, but the description does not state when to use or avoid this tool.

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