poll_email_test

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

Discloses idempotency ('if no message has arrived yet, returns pending'), processing behavior, and explicitly states 'No auth, no destructive side effects.' Annotations already include idempotentHint and destructiveHint false, but description adds what happens on pending and the processing action, matching annotations without contradiction.

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?

Description is compact (three sentences) with no fluff; every sentence provides essential information: purpose, idempotency behavior, usage, and alternative. Front-loaded with action, immediately useful to the agent.

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 a single parameter and high schema coverage, the description fully covers what the agent needs: how to invoke, what to expect ('pending' or parsed result), and caveats (no auth, no destructive side effects). No output schema, but description implies return content adequately for selection.

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 100% for the single parameter testId, and the schema already describes it well. The description adds value by explaining its origin (from create_email_test) and its role in the tool's operation, which is helpful 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 states it processes the latest received message in an email-test session, which distinguishes it from get_email_test and other scanning tools. Uses specific verb 'process' with resource 'latest received message' and includes idempotency details.

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 instructs when to use it ('after the user reports sending the test mail') and contrasts with get_email_test for passive polling. Mentions requirements (requires testId from create_email_test), covering when/when-not and alternatives.

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