mail_date

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It notes natural-language date support, but that same capability is already spelled out in the schema's date description, so it adds little; nothing is said about return format, ordering, volume, or which mailboxes are scanned.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with the usage cue last. Slightly redundant since 'emails from a specific date' is effectively restated in the usage sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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 read-only retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate for selection but silent on result structure, sorting, and pagination limits. It is minimally complete rather than thorough.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the natural-language examples repeated in the description. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('Get') plus resource ('emails') and the scoping condition ('from a specific date'), making the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly name the many sibling list/search tools (mail_search, mail_recent, mail_find) it overlaps with, so differentiation requires inference.

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?

'Use this when the user asks for emails on a specific date' gives an implied usage context, which is more than nothing. However it names no alternatives and gives no exclusion guidance against mail_search or mail_recent for overlapping date-related queries.

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