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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the tool 'checks ... without running any action', reinforcing safe behavior, and details what is checked (definition and email delivery). It also includes the permission requirement and an API reference, providing additional context beyond annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, a permission line, and an API reference. All information is front-loaded and relevant, with no redundant or extraneous content.

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?

Given the simple single-parameter tool with full schema descriptions, annotations, and an output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, what it checks, its safety profile, and prerequisites. It is complete for an agent to correctly understand and invoke 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?

There is only one parameter (automation_id) with 100% schema coverage that already describes it as 'The Automation identifier.' The description does not add further semantics or usage details for the parameter, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Checks', the resource 'Automation definition and email delivery prerequisite', and the constraint 'without running any action'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like automations_send_test or broadcasts_send that execute actions. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 explicitly notes that the tool checks readiness without running actions, implying its use for validation. It also specifies the required permission 'automations:read'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings (e.g., when to use automations_send_test instead) or provide exclusions, leaving room for improvement.

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