list_emails

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It discloses ordering (most recent first) and default folder behavior, but omits read-only safety confirmation, pagination/offset behavior, and what happens when limit is exceeded.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, everything earns its place. No filler.

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 simple read-only list tool this is adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should confirm read-only nature and pagination/return shape. It leaves those gaps.

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 coverage is 50%: folder has a description in-schema, but limit has none (only default/min/max). The description adds the default INBOX behavior, matching the schema default, but no meaning for limit beyond the numeric bounds.

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 (List) and resource (emails) with scope (recent, in a folder, most recent first). Distinguishable from siblings: search_emails queries, get_email fetches one, send_email writes.

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?

Implies usage for browsing recent mail, but never states when to use this versus search_emails, nor any exclusions (e.g., pagination limits, older mail). Usage is only inferred from the description.

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