get-mail-tips

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, but the description frames it as a 'Get' operation via POST without mentioning any side effects or state changes. The description does not contradict annotations, but it fails to clarify the destructive nature, leaving a gap in transparency.

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?

The description is somewhat verbose but well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, then a practical tip, followed by parameter details. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly trimmed without losing meaning.

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 the nested objects and no output schema, the description explains the return format (mailTips per recipient) and covers options and usage well. It lacks details on permissions or error handling but is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 67%, but the description adds substantial value by detailing the required body structure (EmailAddresses array, MailTipsOptions list) and providing examples. It compensates for missing schema descriptions and clarifies parameter usage.

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 states the tool retrieves MailTips for recipients, explains what MailTips cover (OOF, mailbox quota, external recipients, etc.), and provides a specific use case. It uniquely identifies the tool's purpose among siblings, with no confusion.

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 explicitly recommends using the tool before sending an email to check recipient statuses like OOF or mailbox fullness. Although it does not mention when not to use it, the context is clear and no direct alternatives exist among siblings.

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