get_email_summary

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state the return content ('unread counts per account and organization'), which is useful, but it does not reveal whether this is a read-only operation, how recent the counts are, or any freshness/aggregation behavior. It adds moderate context beyond the title.

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 a tight two-part block: a one-line purpose and a returns note. No wasted words, appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

The description explains the return value ('unread counts per account and organization'), which covers the key output semantics. An output schema exists, so return-value detail isn't strictly required. For a simple summary tool with no parameters and no nested objects, this is reasonably complete, though it could mention staleness/aggregation timing.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers them (100%). The description adds semantic value by explaining what the summary contains (unread counts per account and organization), which clarifies the meaning of the tool's no-input contract. With 0 params, the baseline is 4., and the description meets it.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Get a summary of email status across all accounts.' It names the subject (email status) and scope (all accounts), and the description adds 'per account and organization' granularity which distinguishes it from sibling email tools like get_inbox or get_all_unread_emails.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. With 60+ sibling tools including many email-related ones (get_inbox, get_all_unread_emails, get_organization_emails), the description does not clarify when get_email_summary is preferable over those alternatives or what distinguishes it from them functionally.

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