get_email_test

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: read-only, idempotent GET, no auth, returns pending state first then full results. It explains lifecycle and required inputs, leaving no ambiguity about side effects or permissions.

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, highly concise, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds information without redundancy. Ideal length for clarity.

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 read tool with one parameter, the description covers all necessary context: return values, prerequisite, lifecycle, and an alternative tool. No gaps given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by emphasizing the parameter's origin ('from create_email_test'), but does not provide additional semantic detail beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly specifies 'Read-only status read for an email-test session' with specific resource (email-test session) and verb (status read). It distinguishes from sibling poll_email_test by explaining different use cases and return values.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use after sending a test message to that address' and provides an alternative: 'for explicit processing of just-arrived mail use poll_email_test instead.' Also notes prerequisite: 'Requires testId from create_email_test.'

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