list_account_emails

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'list' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, which is clear. However, it does not add details such as whether authentication is required, if the list is sorted, or whether it returns only email addresses or additional metadata. The core behavior is transparent, but additional context is missing.

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 one short sentence of five words, conveying the essential action and target with no redundancy or irrelevant information. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the low complexity (zero parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose adequately. However, it does not specify what the return value looks like (e.g., a list of email addresses, objects, etc.) or any additional context about the delivery email recipients, so it is slightly incomplete but sufficient for a simple list 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema has 100% coverage (i.e., no properties). According to the rubric, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters, as there is no param information to convey. The description correctly avoids inventing parameters.

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 'List delivery email recipients' uses a specific verb (list) and identifies the resource (delivery email recipients), clearly indicating the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'list_deliveries', which could also be related to emails, so it lacks some differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the read counterpart to add_account_email/delete_account_email, nor does it clarify the relationship with list_deliveries. No exclusions or specific context are given.

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