get_smtp_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool checks completion and returns results when ready, but does not disclose what happens when verification has not completed (e.g., whether it returns a 'pending' status, blocks, or errors) or the structure of the returned results. This is a notable gap for a status-polling 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no waste and is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides the essential purpose but leaves gaps about the exact return format and pending state behavior. It is acceptable for a simple status checker but not fully complete without these details.

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?

The schema description fully covers the only parameter, upload_id, explaining it is returned by validate_email or validate_emails_bulk when SMTP is pending. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional parameter-specific information, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 tool's purpose: checking whether background SMTP verification has completed for an upload and returning updated results. It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('background SMTP verification'), and unambiguously distinguishes itself from sibling tools like validate_email and get_deep_analysis_status by focusing on SMTP 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 when to use the tool: after an SMTP verification is pending, likely following validate_email or validate_emails_bulk. The upload_id schema description reinforces this by referencing those tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls slightly short of a 5.

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