list_email_security_allow_policies

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and only says 'List', implying a read operation. It does not disclose scoping, pagination, filtering, response shape, authentication/permisions, or rate limits.

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 one short sentence with no wasted words, but it essentially restates the tool name and provides no structural information beyond the basic operation. It is concise but under-specified.

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?

No output schema exists and no annotations are provided, yet the description does not mention return values or list semantics. For a simple one-parameter list operation it is minimally callable, but an agent lacks context about pagination, response format, and relationship to get_email_security_allow_policy.

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 single parameter account_id is fully covered by the schema description ('The account ID'), so the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no additional parameter context. Baseline 3 applies because schema coverage is 100%.

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 a specific verb ('List') and resource ('email security allow policies'), making the operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_email_security_allow_policy, but the list-vs-get verb distinction and the specific resource provide adequate purpose 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?

No guidance is given for when to choose this tool over alternatives; there are no conditionals, exclusions, or references to siblings. The only usage signal is the verb 'List', which is already present in the tool name.

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