get-mail-tips

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't need to cover safety. It adds valuable context beyond annotations by explaining the POST call behavior, request body format, and the fact that it returns a mailTips collection per recipient. It does not detail errors or permissions, but these are less critical given the read-only nature.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, and the tip paragraph is practical but somewhat lengthy. Every sentence contributes useful information (purpose, body example, return format, usage suggestion), though it could be tightened. It is not over-verbose and maintains good structure.

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 has a nested body object and no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining request and response. It covers the body format, MailTipsOptions values, and return contents ('mailTips per recipient'). It does not address edge cases like invalid recipients or error handling, but for a read-only tool with clear annotations, this is adequate.

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 67% (only includeHeaders and excludeResponse have descriptions). The description compensates by explaining the body structure with a concrete example: EmailAddresses array and MailTipsOptions as a comma-separated subset of allowed values. This gives agents guidance on how to construct the required body, adding significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 it retrieves MailTips for recipients as seen by the signed-in user. It gives a specific verb (get) and resource (MailTips), and the tip section explains concrete use cases (auto-reply/OOF, quota, external recipient, DL). This distinguishes it from any sibling tools, none of which cover MailTips.

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 tip explicitly says to use it 'before sending an email' and recommends it for short-circuiting urgent emails when a recipient is OOF or warning before fanned out to a large DL. It gives clear when-to-use guidance, though it does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use. Since no sibling tool competes directly, this is sufficient.

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