list_email_attachments

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the return type (list of attachments with names and sizes) but omits behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, if it only checks max_results emails, or what happens on no matches.

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 short and structured with Args and Returns sections. Every sentence provides value; no superfluous text.

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 presence of an output schema and 3 parameters, the description is adequate but not thorough. It covers basic functionality and return format but lacks usage guidance and behavioral details.

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 input schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description's Args section adds meaning: examples for account (e.g., 'Gmail'), explanation of max_results ('Maximum number of matching emails to check'), and clarifies the purpose of subject_keyword.

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 clearly states 'List attachments for emails matching a subject keyword' with a specific verb and resource. It effectively conveys the tool's function but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like search_emails or get_email_with_content.

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 does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit guidance on usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter list alone.

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