get_awaiting_reply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explains the internal logic: scanning Sent for outgoing and checking Inbox for replies, and mentions default parameter values. It does not cover edge cases like account errors, but the read-only nature is implied. Sufficient for an email scanning 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?

The description is well-structured with a summary then details and Args section. It is not overly long but some repetition exists (e.g., 'sent emails' appears multiple times). The first sentence effectively states the core purpose, which is a good practice.

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's moderate complexity and absence of annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, how it works, its parameters, and expected output. The mention of return fields (subject, recipient, date sent) compensates for the output schema not being provided. No gaps are apparent.

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?

The description provides thorough explanations for all four parameters beyond what the schema offers (which has 0% coverage). Each parameter has a clear purpose: account name example, days_back range, exclude_noreply logic, and max_results limit. This significantly aids correct invocation.

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 and resource: 'Find sent emails that haven't received a reply yet.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_needs_response' by specifying it scans the Sent mailbox and cross-references with the Inbox for matching subject and recipient. The phrase 'useful for follow-up tracking' adds clarity.

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 for follow-up tracking after sending emails, but does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or list alternatives. For example, it doesn't contrast with 'get_needs_response' or state that it requires sent emails to exist. However, the context is clear enough for a typical use case.

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