emails_batch_read

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it's a read operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's idempotent, rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling for partial failures, or what happens with invalid IDs. 'Read' implies non-destructive, but explicit confirmation would help.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and doesn't include unnecessary details. Every word earns its place in conveying the basic operation.

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 batch read tool with 1 parameter (a complex nested array), 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the input structure, return format, error behavior, or practical usage context. The agent would struggle to use this correctly without additional documentation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate but provides no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'inputs' contains, the purpose of 'id', 'properties', or 'associations' arrays, or how to structure the batch request. The single sentence adds no value beyond the schema's structure.

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 verb ('Read') and resource ('multiple email records'), and specifies the operation scope ('in a single request'). It distinguishes from individual email reads (like emails_get) but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other batch operations like emails_batch_archive or emails_batch_update.

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 like emails_get (for single emails) or emails_list (for listing/filtering). It doesn't mention performance considerations, prerequisites, or limitations compared to sibling tools.

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