get_forums_emails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. 'Get emails' indicates a read-only retrieval operation and the category scope is clear, but the description does not mention return format, ordering, pagination, or confirm there are no side effects. This is acceptable for a simple read tool but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 description is a single efficient sentence with front-loaded verb and resource, followed by a useful parenthetical clarification. There is no filler or redundant information; every word adds value.

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 low-complexity read tool with three optional parameters and no required inputs, the description combined with the 100% schema coverage is largely complete. It explains what category of emails is fetched and the schema handles invocation details; only the absence of explicit return-format information keeps it from being fully complete.

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 the parameters after, before, and limit are already fully documented with formats, constraints, and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level semantics, which is fine given the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 names a specific verb ('Get emails') and specific resource ('Forums category'), and further clarifies with examples ('mailing lists, discussion groups, online forums'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling category getters like get_primary_emails or get_social_emails.

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 clearly establishes the intended context: retrieving emails from the Forums category. It implies the tool is the right choice when that specific category is desired, but it does not explicitly state exclusions or when to prefer a sibling tool like search_emails, so it stops short of a 5.

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