get_all_unread_emails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description doesn't mention pagination behavior, how the 'limit_per_account' interacts with the aggregation, whether multiple organizations cause multiple groupings, return format, or any side effects. For a read operation there's limited risk, but the description still doesn't disclose the full behavioral contract.

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 concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose immediately. The second sentence adds meaningful aggregation detail. It's two short paragraphs with no wasted words. It could arguably be a single paragraph, but the structure is clean and efficient.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. The tool has only 1 parameter which is fully documented in the schema. However, with no annotations and a cross-account aggregation behavior that introduces complexity (multiple accounts, organizations, limits), the description could be more complete about how results are structured or limited. It's adequate but leaves open questions about the aggregation mechanics.

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 100% for the single parameter (limit_per_account), which the schema fully documents with a default value and description. The description adds no additional detail about this parameter beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 it retrieves unread emails from all authorized accounts, aggregating across Gmail and Outlook organized by organization. The verb 'Get' plus the specific resource (unread emails from all authorized accounts) is specific. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_inbox, get_organization_emails, or search_all_emails, though the 'aggregates across accounts/organization' phrasing provides some differentiation.

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 says what the tool does but doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. It mentions it aggregates across Gmail and Outlook accounts, implying it's for a broad cross-account overview, but doesn't name exclusion conditions or alternative tools. The 'organized by organization' hint gives some contextual usage signal but no explicit when-to-use guidance.

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