How the application's mail is landing

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

The description adds critical behavioral context beyond the readOnly and openWorld annotations. It explains that when `reporting` is false, zero counts mean 'unknown' rather than 'healthy', and it exposes the platform's automatic email-stopping thresholds including at least three bouncing addresses that are a fifth of a day's mail, or two spam reports in a week.

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 front-loaded with the time window and resource, and every clause contributes relevant information. The long opening sentence is dense, but it remains efficient and the important reporting caveat is clearly separated.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the necessary burden well. It enumerates what the tool returns, specifies the seven-day window, explains health status, covers recent problems, and clarifies the meaning of zero counts when reporting is disconnected.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and schema description coverage is 100%.

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 states a specific resource and scope: the last 7 days of this application's mail, covering delivered, bounced, spam-reported, health, recent problems, and platform rules. It is clear what the tool reports, but it does not name or distinguish itself from sibling tools such as email_activity, email_overview, or email_status.

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?

Usage is implied: the tool is for checking mail deliverability health and recent problems. However, the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of related sibling tools, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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