find_unsubscribe_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose what is scanned and what kinds of links are found. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, what it returns when no links are found, or how results are structured.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. Every phrase adds useful signal: the email type, the two detection targets, and the action.

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, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and the scope of the search. It leaves minor gaps around return format and no-match behavior, but these are not critical for invoking the tool.

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%, so the parameters uid and folder are already fully documented in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable at the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('tespit eder' / detects), a clear resource (unsubscribe paths in newsletters and promotional emails), and specific detection mechanisms (List-Unsubscribe headers or body cancel links). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like search_emails or read_email.

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 implies the tool is for newsletters and promotional emails, which gives context, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling is named, and no exclusion criteria are provided.

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