get_emails_from_sender

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 'across all accounts' scope which is useful behavioral context not evident from the schema. However, it doesn't disclose the return format, ordering, pagination behavior, or what 'emails' means (full vs summary) despite having an output schema that could clarify this.

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 single, focused sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the key action and scoping constraint, making it immediately actionable. Nothing extraneous.

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?

With an output schema present and 100% parameter coverage, the description carries less burden. However, given the large sibling set of email tools and no annotations, some additional guidance on behavior (ordering, pagination, what counts as a match) would strengthen completeness. Adequate but not fully fleshed out for the search-like nature of this tool.

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%, so both parameters (sender and limit) are documented in the schema with descriptions. The description adds the 'across all accounts' semantic and confirms the sender field accepts email or domain, which complements rather than repeats the schema. The baseline of 3 applies, and the sender semantic clarification nudges it to 4.

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 action (get emails) and resource (from a specific sender), with the scoping constraint 'across all accounts' adding useful specificity. It distinguishes from siblings like search_all_emails and get_inbox by the sender-filter focus, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 implies use when needing sender-filtered emails, but provides no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance. There are many email-sibling tools (get_inbox, search_all_emails, get_email_thread, get_all_unread_emails), yet no mention of when this tool is preferable to searching, or what distinguishes 'get emails from sender' from a general search.

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