List email logs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses pagination (max 25 per page), optional search query, and the type of data returned. However, it does not mention response format, default behavior, or any potential rate limits or authentication requirements, leaving some gaps.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then key details (pagination, search), then a cross-reference to a sibling tool. No filler, every sentence earns its place.

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 list tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It specifies the data fields returned, pagination limits, search capability, and how to get more detailed protocol information, covering the essential context an agent needs.

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 all parameters. The description adds a bit of context by linking 'date' to 'given date' and calling out the optional search query, but this is marginal value over the schema definitions.

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 tool lists email log records for a given date, specifying the exact fields (timestamps, IPs, ports, user, addresses, redirections, subject). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on email logs and pointing to get_email_log_protocol for full transcripts, making its scope unambiguous.

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 use (listing email delivery attempts for a date) and explicitly mentions using get_email_log_protocol when a full SMTP transcript is needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast with list_auth_logs or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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