format_emails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool supports field selection, filtering, and sorting, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only or if it modifies the original data. For a non-destructive transform, additional clarity on side effects would improve transparency.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool has 5 parameters (including nested objects) and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the core operations (field selection, filtering, sorting) but could be enhanced by briefly describing the output format options or clarifying that original emails remain unchanged.

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 coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as 'custom structure' but no specific details. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb ('Re-format and filter'), the resource ('email objects'), and the context ('previously fetched'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools that perform different actions (e.g., search, modify, send).

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 mentions 'previously fetched' implying use after fetching, but does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or list alternatives. It relies on contextual inference from sibling names.

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