Clean an email list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states what cleaning operations are performed (dedupe, invalid syntax, disposable/role) and what is returned (cleaned list plus summary). It does not cover edge cases like case normalization or whether the input is modified, but it is reasonably transparent for a cleaning tool.

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 main purpose, then scope, then return detail. No wasted words.

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?

The description is complete for a simple cleaning tool: it explains the operation and return value. It does not explicitly differentiate from verification tools (e.g., checking deliverability), but the sibling list and context make this clear enough. The lack of an output schema is offset by the description's mention of a summary.

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 description does not need to repeat parameter definitions. The description's 'optionally strips disposable and role accounts' aligns with the schema defaults, but adds no new meaning beyond the schema.

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 the tool cleans an email list, specifying concrete actions: dedupe, remove invalid syntax, and optionally strip disposable and role accounts. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_email and extract_emails.

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 clear usage context: 'before an import or campaign.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for most scenarios.

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