MCP Email Service

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it retrieves data 'from the local sync logs,' implying read-only access, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, data format, pagination, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 that front-loads the purpose and includes key details (scope, filtering, source). There is no wasted verbiage, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a read-focused tool, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., format, structure), error handling, or operational constraints. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured output, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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%, with both parameters (account_id and hours) well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'specific account' and 'specified hours' but not elaborating on semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Get synchronization history') and resource ('from the local sync logs'), specifying scope ('for all accounts or a specific account within specified hours'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_sync_health or get_recent_activity by focusing on sync logs, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from them.

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 usage when needing sync history data, with optional filtering by account and time. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_recent_activity or get_sync_health, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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