hide_my_email_get_alias

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint true, so no contradiction. The description adds 'capped' (potentially indicating rate limiting or maximum results) and 'exact inferred', providing context beyond annotations. However, it does not detail error handling or behavior for invalid handles.

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, concise sentence with no redundant words. Key elements (verb, resource, constraints) are front-loaded, making it efficient for an agent to scan.

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 tool has one parameter and annotations, the description minimally covers purpose and behavior. But it lacks parameter details and return value information (though output schema exists). For a simple tool, it is adequate but has gaps in completeness.

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 0%, meaning the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only mentions 'by opaque handle', but does not explain what a handle is, its format, or how to obtain it. This is insufficient for an agent to correctly provide the parameter value.

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 action 'Get' and the resource 'exact inferred Hide My Email alias detail', specifying the input 'by opaque handle' and behavior 'capped and read-only'. This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'hide_my_email_search' which likely returns multiple aliases without the handle constraint.

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 you have an opaque handle and need the exact alias detail, contrasting with searching. It mentions 'capped' suggesting a limit, but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives. The sibling list includes 'hide_my_email_search' which aids differentiation.

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