list_emails_quarter

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read operation (implied by 'List'), returns sorted data (newest-first), includes a globally unique ID, and mentions a related tool (fetch_email_content). It doesn't cover rate limits, permissions, or pagination, but provides substantial context beyond basic functionality.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by details on return format and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 moderate complexity (filtered list operation), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the return format, sorting, and ID usage. It could improve by mentioning default behavior or error cases, but it covers the essentials 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter (mailbox). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but it doesn't need to since the schema is complete. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 in the last 90 days'), identifies the resource (emails), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying the time range (90 days vs. 24h, 7days, month, year, all). It also mentions the return format and sorting order.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (emails from the last 90 days) and implicitly suggests an alternative (fetch_email_content for full content). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or compare it to other time-based siblings like list_emails_month or list_emails_year.

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