Get User Email Addresses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that — the word "all" weakly implies a complete, unpaginated list, but pagination, ordering, and whether unverified addresses are included are all unstated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler and nothing repeated from the title or schema. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of any usage or behavioral context.

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?

With one required parameter at 100% schema coverage and an output schema available, the description is sufficient for correct invocation. It falls short of fully adequate by omitting whether results are paginated and whether this is the canonical way to obtain a user's emails versus reading them off get_user.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single user_id parameter, including its URL path mapping, so the schema already carries parameter semantics. The description only restates that the user is "specified" and adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond it — baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource pair ("Retrieves all email addresses") scoped to a single user, which an agent can distinguish from mutating siblings like create_user_email_address. It does not, however, differentiate itself from adjacent read tools such as get_user or get_user_phone_numbers, which may surface overlapping identity data.

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 purpose implies when to call it (an agent needing a user's email addresses), and the required user_id makes the precondition evident. No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing (e.g., use get_user if you also need phone/profile data) is provided.

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