get_email_test

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

Beyond the annotations, it explains the pending-to-results state transition, the kinds of results returned, the requirement for a prior create_email_test step, and that no auth is needed. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, lifecycle, dependency, when-to-use, and alternative tool. Dense but not bloated, and the text front-loads the essential purpose before adding usage nuance.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description adequately covers what to expect ('pending' vs full authentication/spam results), the required input, when to call, the safe read-only nature, and no-auth requirement. The tool is fully operational from the description alone.

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 already covers testId with 100% clarity ("Email test ID returned by create_email_test"). The description reinforces this requirement but does not add meaningful new parameter-level details beyond usage context.

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 identifies a read-only status tool for email-test sessions, explaining the pending/complete lifecycle. It distinguishes itself from poll_email_test by describing status polling vs explicit processing.

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?

Provides direct guidance: use after sending a message to the test address, and explicitly names poll_email_test as the alternative for processing just-arrived mail. Also states the dependency on 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.