get_primary_emails

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does convey that only Primary-category emails are returned, which is useful selection behavior. It does not describe sort order, pagination behavior, or return shape, but the operation is an obvious read and the schema documents limits.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the resource and its semantic 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?

For a simple read-only list tool with fully documented optional parameters, the description is nearly complete. It lacks an explicit note about return format, but the absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by the obvious 'get emails' semantics and clear category definition.

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%, with all three parameters already documented including formats, defaults, and bounds. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed because the schema already handles this dimension.

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 and resource: 'Get emails from Primary category,' and adds clarifying context with 'important conversations from real people.' This clearly distinguishes it from category-specific siblings like get_social_emails, get_promotions_emails, and get_updates_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 category label and 'important conversations from real people' imply when the tool should be used, and sibling names make the broader taxonomy clear. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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