Learn conventions from a good email

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with them while adding the non-obvious workflow fact that output is a set of proposals requiring human confirmation before persistence. It stops short of describing how many proposals come back or how conflicts with existing house rules are handled.

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, front-loaded with the action and the enumeration of extracted conventions, with the safety constraint appended where it matters most. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description should hint at the shape of the proposals it returns, and it only says they are proposals needing confirmation. Combined with unexplained input parameters, the definition leaves real gaps for a tool with four undocumented fields.

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 description coverage is 0% and none of the four parameters (file, from, html, subject) are explained in the description, nor is it stated which combination constitutes a valid email input or that all are optional. With zero coverage the description was the only place to compensate and it did not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read an email... propose house rules from it') and enumerates exactly what it extracts: link domains, UTM params and values, sender, name fallback, US/GB spelling, subject style, footer and postal address. The 'Proposals only; confirm with the person before saving' clause implicitly separates it from save_house_rules, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear usage condition ('an email the team considers correct') and a clear boundary ('proposals only... confirm before saving'). It does not explicitly name get_house_rules or save_house_rules as the follow-on/alternative steps, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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