wait_for_email

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

With no annotations, description covers key behaviors: polling, retries with backoff, and return of matched message with links. It does not detail side effects (e.g., whether emails are marked read) or failure behavior (timeout result), but is sufficient for a simple polling tool.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose and immediately clarifies advantage over sibling. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given 4 documented parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main function and output shape ('matching message with extracted links'). It lacks details on polling interval or backoff specifics, but is adequate for typical use.

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?

All parameters are documented in the input schema with descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning or usage hints for the parameters beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 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?

Description clearly states it polls an inbox until a matching email arrives, with retries and backoff. It distills the core action and distinguishes from sibling tool check_inbox by promoting itself as a better alternative to manual looping.

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?

Explicitly advocates using this instead of check_inbox in a loop, providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternatives for other tasks like creating inboxes.

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