Get email activation status

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses an authentication requirement ('Requires an API key') and a useful side-effect signal ('Does not spend'), but it does not clarify whether the tool can be polled repeatedly, whether it changes activation state, or what happens before the email is received. These are meaningful gaps for a status tool.

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?

Two short sentences, with the resource and returned values front-loaded and the prerequisite/side-effect included immediately. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant wording.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers inputs, expected outputs, authentication, and the fact that it does not spend. It is slightly thin on explicit usage context relative to sibling tools, but the schema and sibling names fill most of the remaining gap.

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%, and the schema already describes id as the email activation id from email_request or email_list. The description only restates 'one email activation' and adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline 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 names a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('one email activation'), and the returned data (status, parsed OTP, raw HTML body). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_status; the email-specific wording makes the resource clear, but the differentiation is left implicit.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives such as get_status or email_list are mentioned. The phrase 'once received' implies this is meant for checking an activation after an email request, but that usage context is only implied, not stated.

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