get_organization_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 state that this is a read-only operation (which the name implies but doesn't guarantee), whether it returns emails across multiple accounts/folders, how 'recent' is defined, or what happens with limits. It also doesn't disclose whether the organization parameter is an exact match or fuzzy match.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately short for the tool's simplicity. It states the purpose directly without filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite having an output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description is thin for a tool with so many email-related siblings. It doesn't clarify the relationship between 'organization' and the emails (are they labeled by organization? matched via contact links?), doesn't define 'recent', and doesn't mention any caveats about coverage (e.g., does it only search certain folders or all inboxes). For a tool operating alongside many ambiguous email tools, this needs more context.

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% — both 'limit' and 'organization' have descriptions in the schema. The organization description includes examples ('Primary', 'Secondary') and the limit has a default of 20. The tool description itself adds minimal parameter context ('recent' implies a time window). Given high schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't substantially add beyond schema but doesn't need to.

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 'Get recent emails related to a specific organization' has a clear verb+resource+qualifier ('get', 'emails', 'specific organization'). However, it doesn't differentiate itself from many sibling tools like 'get_all_unread_emails', 'get_inbox', 'search_all_emails', or 'get_emails_from_sender' — the distinction between 'related to an organization' vs. other email retrieval tools is not explicitly clarified beyond the basic statement.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 60+ sibling tools including many email-related ones (get_inbox, get_all_unread_emails, get_emails_from_sender, search_all_emails), there is no when/when-not guidance. The description doesn't clarify whether this is for filtering the inbox by organization entity, or a broader search, or when this would be preferred over the email search tool.

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