list_emails_settings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the HTTP GET endpoint, which confirms the read-only nature, but does not add behavioral context beyond that. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely short and front-loaded: 'Get email settings' immediately conveys the purpose, and the HTTP endpoint line adds a useful confirmation. It is concise without being a tautology, though it could arguably be slightly more descriptive about what settings are included.

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 zero-parameter, read-only, idempotent GET endpoint with an output schema present, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is that it doesn't describe what email settings are returned, but the output schema likely covers that, and the annotations cover the behavioral profile.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The schema is empty and coverage is 100%, meaning nothing is undocumented. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('email settings'), and the HTTP endpoint reinforces the action. It is distinguishable from siblings like patch_emails_settings (which modifies settings) and list_auth_settings (which lists a different kind of settings), though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 this is the read-only counterpart to patch_emails_settings and a more specific settings variant than list_auth_settings, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus those alternatives. The context of 'Get email settings' is clear enough for a simple read operation, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is provided.

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