Danh sách email

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds domain context (sent email history, filterable by status/recipient/time) but omits return format, pagination details, and authentication requirements. With annotations covering the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the filter context in Vietnamese and a concise English summary. It avoids waste, though the bilingual repetition is slightly redundant; overall it is appropriately sized.

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 read-only list/search tool with no output schema and four optional parameters, the description covers purpose and filter dimensions but omits ordering, pagination behavior, and any indication of return shape. Annotations cover safety, but these remaining gaps leave it adequate rather than complete.

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. It maps 'to' to recipient, 'status' to status, and 'since' to time filters, but does not mention the 'limit' parameter or clarify any syntax beyond what the schema already enforces. Partial compensation warrants a 3.

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 English sentence 'Use to search sent email history' specifies both the verb and the resource clearly. It does not explicitly differentiate from related siblings such as mail_status or mail_stats, but the 'sent email history' scope is distinct enough for an agent to identify the tool's domain.

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 Vietnamese clause 'Khi tra lịch sử gửi' establishes the context (when looking up send history) and adds filter dimensions (status, recipient, time). It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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