Find email groups that route through a given SMTP server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses an important behavioral consequence (groups will lose their delivery path) and implies a read-only lookup through 'return'. However, it does not mention pagination behavior or error conditions.

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 with no filler; the action and use case are front-loaded. Every sentence contributes 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?

The tool is a straightforward lookup with an output schema, and the description covers purpose, main parameter, and a critical use scenario. Minor gaps around pagination parameters exist, but the overall context is sufficient.

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 description only explains smtp_server_id ('Given an SMTP-server id'), leaving limit and after_cursor entirely undocumented. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to clarify the full parameter set.

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 verb ('return') and precise resource ('email groups bound to an SMTP server'), with the title clarifying routing. It distinguishes itself from generic list/get tools by tying results to an SMTP server id.

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 identifies a use case ('Useful before retiring an SMTP server') and explains the consequence of removal, giving an agent a clear when-to-use signal. It does not name alternative tools, but the context makes it clear this is the SMTP-specific lookup.

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