Get Transactional Emails

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds one genuine behavioral detail — that the response includes delivery status — which is not in the annotations. That is useful but minimal, so a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses. Minor grammar awkwardness ('one transactional emails message') slightly hurts readability but does not obscure meaning.

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 simple single-resource read with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate: it identifies the resource and notes the delivery-status return value. It could be complete at 5 with a hint that the id comes from list-emails.

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 a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage (the schema itself documents the UUID id and its pattern), so the schema carries the semantic load. The description adds nothing beyond it, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 verb (get) and resource (one transactional email message) and adds scope ('one' plus delivery status), which clearly distinguishes it from list-emails and the campaign getters. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate against, keeping it at a solid 4 rather than 5.

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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never references alternatives such as list-emails or the SMS/push message getters. The single-retrieval scope is implied but never framed as a routing decision for the agent.

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