list_emails_7days

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 clearly describes the return format (array of objects with id, subject, from, date), sorting order (newest-first), and how to use the id with another tool. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving some behavioral aspects uncovered.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by return details and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value—none are redundant or wasteful—making it efficiently structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, return format, sorting, and tool chaining. A minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of default behavior or error cases, but overall it provides sufficient context for effective use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the mailbox parameter fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating value.

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 explicitly states the verb ('List'), resource ('emails'), and temporal scope ('received in the last 7 days'), making the purpose specific. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like list_emails_24h, list_emails_all, etc., by specifying the 7-day timeframe.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool (for emails in the last 7 days) and when to use an alternative (fetch_email_content for full content using the returned id). It distinguishes from other list_emails_* tools by its time range, aiding in sibling differentiation.

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