aliasmail_check_spam_score

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses that the tool checks spam heuristic triggers, capitalization ratios, link density, and deliverability risk, but it does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the result shape is, or any permission or rate-limit considerations.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the evaluation target and the dimensions checked.

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 simple two-parameter analysis tool with full schema coverage, the description gives enough to understand what is checked. However, because there is no output schema, the description does not explain the return value or score format, which leaves a meaningful gap for invocation planning.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters, subject and body, are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond referring generically to 'email copy', which is adequate but not enriching.

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 a specific verb and resource: evaluate email copy for spam score and deliverability risk. It clearly distinguishes the tool's analytical purpose from sibling tools like email validation or header analysis, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 phrase 'Evaluate email copy' implies checking content before sending, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context to inference.

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