List automation emails

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's only behavioral claim, 'Reads account data,' restates the read-only hint and adds no new information such as pagination behavior, truncation, or account-scoping effects.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, with no filler or repetition. The brevity is efficient even though it leaves substantive gaps that are penalized under other dimensions.

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?

This is an 8-parameter paginated list tool with a deprecated page param, a recommended cursor flow, an all_pages/max_items bulk mode with truncation and continuation-cursor semantics, and no output schema. None of that pagination or truncation behavior is explained, leaving the agent reliant entirely on the schema to invoke it correctly.

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%, and the schema itself documents all 8 parameters including the deprecated page, cursor pagination, all_pages, max_items, and the prefixed ID patterns. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, a 3 is appropriate since the description adds nothing beyond the schema but is not required to.

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 is a verbatim restatement of the tool name and title ('List automation emails'), which is the definition of tautology. It gives no scope, no distinguishing detail versus siblings such as list_automations, get_automation, or list_automation_journeys, so an agent cannot tell which automation-related read tool this is without opening the schema.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling automation tools. The only additional sentence ('Reads account data.') is a safety/scope note, not usage direction.

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