get_warmup_status

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 covered. The description adds context about warm-up capacity risks but doesn't disclose further tool behaviors like data freshness, response format, or rate limits. Given the strong annotations, this is adequate.

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?

Two sentences efficiently state purpose and a critical warning. No filler or repetition of structured data (annotations/schema) means every word 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only status tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description mentions the returned data (progress, remaining capacity) and the importance of checking it. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty schema). It doesn't add parameter-related details, but none are needed.

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 provides a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('IP/domain warm-up progress') alongside an additional key datum ('today's remaining send capacity'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_deliverability_score, which focuses on overall deliverability, not warm-up 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 warning about exceeding warm-up capacity strongly implies when to use the tool (before sending on a new domain), providing clear context. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion scenarios, but the context is sufficient.

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