get_social_emails

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds useful content-type context by specifying notifications from social networks, but it does not describe return shape, ordering, pagination behavior, or whether the operation has any side effects. 'Get' implies read-only, but the description does not state it.

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 well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the category, then adds clarifying examples. Every word contributes to tool selection.

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 tool with three optional, well-documented parameters, the description supplies the essential selection context and the schema handles parameter details. It does not explicitly state the exact return format, but the sibling set and the simple nature of the tool make this a moderate rather than critical gap.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions, defaults, and constraints, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Get emails from Social category.' The examples 'Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn' clarify exactly what kind of content is included, and the category label clearly separates it from sibling tools like get_primary_emails and get_forums_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 gives clear context for when this tool is relevant: when the user wants social-network notification emails. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or compare itself to search_emails/get_email_content, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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