List emails and meetings

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavior: newest-first default, what each item carries, that detailed expands participants and next steps, and the returned structuredContent shape including next_cursor. Pagination contract is spelled out well; no rate limits or auth notes, hence a 4.

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?

Front-loads what is listed and the default order, then filters, then the response shape, then the sibling alternative. Every clause carries information; no filler or repetition.

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?

For a filter-and-paginate list tool with a nested sort object, the description covers scope, ordering, filtering, page size behavior via cursor, response verbosity, and the return envelope. With an output schema present, return values need not be fully re-explained, so nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the key filters (record_id, channel, sort, detailed) but adds little beyond what the schema already documents, including the concise/detailed cut at 300 characters.

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 (lists) and resource (synced emails and meetings) plus default ordering, and distinguishes itself from heliyos_interactions_get by naming that sibling as the single-item variant. An agent can tell which of the two to call without opening either 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 clear selection conditions: use record_id to scope to one record, channel to scope to emails or meetings, and switch to heliyos_interactions_get when a single interaction with its full summary is wanted. It lacks explicit when-not guidance (e.g. preferring search or timeline tools for other lookups), so it stops short of a 5.

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