get-mail-tips

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds value by specifying it's a POST call (a read-only operation), explaining the response structure, and detailing MailTipsOptions. 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?

Two paragraphs with a helpful tip block. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating action, clarifying use case, and detailing parameters. No wasted words, front-loaded with key info.

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 tool's simplicity and rich annotations, the description fully answers what it does, when to use it, how to invoke it, and what to expect in return. No gaps given the 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?

Despite schema having 67% coverage, the description provides essential extra meaning: an example body structure, explanation of MailTipsOptions (comma-separated subset), and response content. This compensates for missing schema descriptions on EmailAddresses and MailTipsOptions.

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 gets MailTips for recipients, explaining what MailTips are (OOF, quota, external, etc.) and how it works via a POST call. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying a unique use case (pre-send checks) not covered by other mail actions.

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 includes explicit usage guidance: 'before sending an email' and 'Use this to short-circuit urgent emails...or to warn before fanning out to a large DL.' It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but the context is clear.

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