get_promotions_emails

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but the description does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or whether emails are marked as read. This is minimally transparent but not misleading.

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?

A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core action and category, then provides concrete examples. Every word contributes; 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?

For a simple filtered-list tool with three optional, fully described parameters, the description covers purpose and domain sufficiently. It doesn't specify the return payload shape, but the result is clearly 'emails' and sibling tools like get_email_content handle deeper retrieval. Could be slightly improved by noting whether returned items are summaries or full emails.

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 (after, before, limit) already documented with formats and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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') and resource ('emails from Promotions category'), further clarifying with examples like marketing emails, deals, offers, and newsletters. This clearly differentiates it from sibling category tools such as get_primary_emails and 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 identifies the Promotions category, allowing an agent to select this tool over the other category-specific getters. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the category naming provides sufficient routing context.

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