get_awaiting_reply

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

Discloses scanning the Sent mailbox and cross-referencing subject and recipient, but lacks details on edge cases (e.g., replies with different subjects), performance, or error behavior. Annotations are absent, so description carries full burden but is only moderately thorough.

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 one-line summary, a paragraph explaining logic, and bullet-like Args/Returns sections. Every sentence is informative and concise.

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?

The description covers the main behavior, parameters, and return format, and is sufficient for understanding tool use. However, it omits potential error conditions (e.g., invalid account) and does not leverage the output schema visibility (if any).

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?

All four parameters are explained in the Args section (account, days_back, exclude_noreply, max_results) with clear defaults and purpose, compensating for the 0% schema coverage. The descriptions add meaningful context beyond the schema titles.

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 states 'Find sent emails that haven't received a reply yet' with specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from tools like 'get_needs_response' by focusing on cross-referencing sent items with inbox replies.

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 but does not explicitly compare to siblings like 'get_needs_response' or state when not to use. No exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.

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