List sequence emails

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only 'Reads account data,' which is vague and adds little beyond what annotations already provide. With annotations carrying the burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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 are front-loaded and efficient, though the second sentence is vague and borderline filler. No wasted length, but the content is thin.

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?

With 10 parameters, 40% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It fails to explain pagination behavior, what 'sequence emails' actually returns, or how this differs from sibling sequence tools.

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 coverage is 40%, so six parameters (after, before, include, per_page, include_content, include_total_count) lack descriptions anywhere. The description adds no parameter meaning, leaving a significant gap.

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 states a verb and resource ('List sequence emails'), giving clear basic purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like 'get_sequence_email' or 'list_sequences', leaving scope ambiguous within the sequence family.

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?

No when-to-use context, no exclusions, and no alternatives named. The agent must infer from the name alone whether this returns emails in a sequence, sends them, or something else.

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