wait_for_email

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that HTML is omitted and directs to export_webhook_data, explains the return_existing flag for pre-arrived emails, and mentions the prerequisite of creating a webhook. It does not mention any potential side effects or rate limits, but the key behavioral facts are covered.

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 concise, three sentences, and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It includes important conditional guidance (when to use return_existing, when to create_webhook first) without excessive detail. A slight improvement could be to structure the return_existing and timeout info more prominently, but it's well-organized.

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?

The tool is moderately complex with 4 parameters and a return payload including URLs and OTP codes. The description covers the main usage flow, mentions the return data, and provides pointers for additional use cases (full HTML, following links). The output schema exists, so the description needn't detail the return structure. It doesn't mention edge cases like multiple emails or filtering, but for the core use case it is sufficiently complete.

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 only 25% (only webhook_token has a description). The description adds meaning for the parameters: it explains return_existing (return_existing=true if email already arrived), timeout_seconds range (1-120s), and clarifies webhook_token format (UUID from create_webhook). This compensates for the low schema coverage, though extract_links is not explicitly explained in the description but is self-evident.

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 clearly states the tool waits for specific types of emails (sign-up, verify, magic-link, password-reset) with a timeout range. It specifies the output (subject, preview, URLs, verification codes) and names the sibling tool 'create_webhook' for prerequisite setup, distinguishing it from 'wait_for_request' and 'follow_email_link'.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (after submitting a webhook email on a website) and mentions the alternative for full HTML (export_webhook_data) and the follow_email_link tool. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus other similar tools like wait_for_request.

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