list_emails_24h

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the return format (array of objects with specific fields), sorting behavior (newest-first), and the purpose of the id field (globally unique identifier for use with fetch_email_content). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements.

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 description is extremely efficient with two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: the first defines the core functionality and output format, the second explains the id field's purpose. There's zero wasted language, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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 simple listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good coverage of the essential information: what it does, what it returns, and how to use the output. It could be more complete by mentioning potential limitations or edge cases, but given the tool's straightforward nature and the absence of structured metadata, it's reasonably comprehensive.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter (mailbox). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but since the schema coverage is complete, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description focuses on the tool's overall behavior rather than parameter details.

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 clearly states the specific action ('List all emails received'), resource ('emails'), and temporal scope ('in the last 24 hours'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_emails_7days or list_emails_all. It provides a precise verb+resource+scope combination that makes the tool's purpose immediately understandable.

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?

The description implicitly suggests when to use this tool (for recent emails within 24 hours) and mentions an alternative tool (fetch_email_content) for reading full content, but doesn't explicitly compare it to other list_emails_* siblings or provide exclusion criteria. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over similar time-bound listing tools.

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