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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: body retention is 30 days then null with bodyGone set to expired or deleted, sendError fields appear when uncertain or failed, dry runs have no links, and campaignId mismatch yields not_found. It also discloses anonymization and untrusted-content handling.

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 content is front-loaded and informative, but it is delivered as one very long run-on sentence packed with parentheticals. It avoids pure filler, yet the density and repetition around untrusted content reduce readability.

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 no output schema, the description carries return-value explanation itself and does so thoroughly: send record fields, address handling, body retention, link details, and campaign metadata. An agent has enough context to interpret the result.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description still adds useful meaning: emailSendId's provenance and campaignId's strict relationship to the email's drop with a not_found failure mode.

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 a specific retrieval action ('One email as it was sent, by emailSendId') for a precisely identified resource. It distinguishes itself from broader drop or render tools by tying the lookup to a sent email record and naming the id source.

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 that emailSendId comes from lnkdrp_get_drop or a contact's sends, which gives clear usage context. It also notes that campaignId must match the email's drop or return not_found, but it does not explicitly compare against nearby tools like lnkdrp_get_email_render or lnkdrp_get_drop.

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