emailSiteAuditReport

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

It goes well beyond the annotations by warning 'THIS SENDS REAL EMAIL EVERY TIME IT IS CALLED,' stating non-idempotence, and advising not to retry on timeout without user confirmation. It also adds recipient, entitlement, and rate-limit constraints that annotations alone do not convey.

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 primary action is front-loaded, the critical side-effect warning is prominent, and every subsequent sentence adds operational value. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the annotations, schema, and output schema, the description supplies all remaining operational facts needed for safe invocation: fixed recipient, real-email side effect, retry guidance, entitlement, and rate limiting. Nothing essential is missing.

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 auditId parameter is already fully described in the schema as 'The completed audit to send,' and schema coverage is 100%. The description reinforces that an audit report is emailed but adds no new parameter-level semantics.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Email an audit report, with PDF attachments, to the authenticated account's own address.' It also distinguishes itself from view/export siblings by explicitly constraining the recipient to the authenticated account.

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 gives clear usage context: reports go only to the authenticated account, sending to a colleague/client is a dashboard action, and the tool requires the PDF export entitlement and is rate limited. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, but the exclusions are clear.

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