recent_emails

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

Annotations cover safety (read-only, non-destructive, open-world), while the description adds essential behavioral context: newest-first ordering, omission of bodies, default Inbox, folder/store relationship, best-effort pagination, non-snapshot behavior, and single-use cursors expiring after 10 minutes. No annotation contradiction.

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?

Very dense and front-loaded: purpose, scope, filter rules, and pagination caveats appear in a few sentences with no wasted words. Every sentence adds operational meaning.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers the tricky pagination and filtering behavior well, but omits guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools and gives only minimal treatment of limit.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clearly documents cursor semantics and the store_id/folder_id relationship, but does not explain limit beyond noting it may change when following a cursor. Limit defaults and bounds remain in schema only.

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 specific verb and resource ('List recent emails') plus ordering and a key exclusion ('without bodies'). It also clarifies default scope and folder selection. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like search_emails or read_email, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives clear filter rules for store_id and folder_id and explains cursor continuation, but does not say when to choose this tool over search_emails or read_email. Usage is implied rather than explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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