Get Sending Connection

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by stating the required 'email.send' permission and explicitly ruling out side effects like sending email or checking credits/provider readiness.

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 carry all essential information: the action, the resource, the required permission, and the exclusions. It is front-loaded and every sentence adds useful guidance.

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 tool with rich annotations, an output schema, and a single optional parameter, the description covers the necessary context: purpose, permission requirement, and clear boundaries against sending-related operations. Nothing critical is missing.

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% and the only parameter, If-None-Match, is already fully described in the schema. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses specific verbs ('Validate', 'read') and names the exact resource ('current Sending credential') along with the data it exposes ('team, connection label and permissions'). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from email-sending operations, making its purpose unambiguous relative to siblings.

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 gives clear context: use this to validate/read the Sending credential, and it requires the email.send permission. It also states what the tool does not do ('does not send email or check credits or provider readiness'), which prevents misuse, though it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools for those cases.

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