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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive, open-world write action. The description adds important context beyond them: the email is actually sent externally, forwarding becomes verified on arrival, and verification should be checked after a minute using get_setup_status.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and purpose, followed by the verification flow and return value. No obvious waste.

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 annotations covering safety and openness, the schema covering the only parameter, and no output schema, the description provides what an agent needs: the side effect (sends email), the resulting verification, the follow-up tool, and the return value. Minor gaps like retry/rate-limit behavior are not addressed but are not essential here.

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 single mailboxId parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including its source from add_support_email or get_setup_status. The description does not add any new parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given 100% schema coverage.

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?

States the specific action (send a test email), target (the mailbox's support address), and goal (check that it forwards to Aide). This clearly separates it from setup siblings like add_support_email and points to get_setup_status for the verification check.

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?

Explains the context in which to use it: to verify forwarding after setup, then check status after a minute. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with add_support_email, but the intended workflow is clear.

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