list_archived_emails_for_source

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope constraint ('one ingestion source') but reveals no additional behavioral traits such as ordering, return shape, or pagination behavior. This is adequate but not enriching.

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 tight sentence that states the action, the object, and the scope with zero filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the most important constraint ('for one ingestion source') is front-loaded.

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 straightforward read-only list operation, the description is minimally sufficient, especially with annotations covering side effects. Still, there is no mention of pagination, result ordering, or what an archive email record includes, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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 parameter description coverage is only 33%, with page and limit left undocumented. The description clarifies the role of ingestionSourceId but does not mention pagination semantics or defaults, leaving two of three parameters to be inferred solely from their names.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List archived emails') and narrows the scope to 'one ingestion source', which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like get_email or search_emails. The intent is immediately clear without needing to inspect the 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?

The description implies the appropriate use case: retrieve archived emails tied to a single ingestion source. However, it provides no explicit routing or exclusions (e.g., 'use search_emails for filtered queries' or 'prefer get_email for a single email'), so the agent must infer when this tool is preferable over siblings.

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