get_sent_to_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns delivery details and statuses, implying a read operation. However, it does not mention whether it is safe (no side effects) or any rate limits. The pagination parameters (count, offset) are present but not described as behavioral traits.

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 a single sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any extraneous words. It is appropriately front-loaded and every part earns its place.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the core functionality and parameter context for the most relevant parameters. However, it lacks guidance on pagination behavior (count/offset) and how results are ordered, which could affect user experience.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It specifies that the status parameter can be 'sent', 'hard', or 'soft', providing concrete values. It also clarifies that campaign_id identifies the email campaign. However, it does not explain count and offset parameters, which are left to the schema defaults.

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 'Get' and the resource 'delivery details' for members, including specific statuses (sent, hard, soft). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_campaign_report or get_open_report, which focus on aggregate stats rather than per-member delivery status.

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 implies use when needing per-member delivery status, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives. For example, it does not differentiate from get_campaign_report, which might provide similar but aggregated data. No when-not or specific context is given.

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