beel_get_email_delivery_indicators

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond annotations: it explains that last_status can be REJECTED or QUEUED, that count > 0 does not imply delivery, and that ids with no emails are omitted. These caveats help the agent interpret results correctly.

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 well-structured with three short paragraphs. The first sentence states the primary purpose and return values, followed by clarifying caveats and an endpoint reference. It is somewhat verbose but each sentence adds value; no filler.

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 output schema, the description explains the response semantics: fields like last_status and count, plus behavior for missing ids. It does not specify every field name or timestamp format, but it provides enough to call the tool and understand results. Annotations cover safety, so missing details like pagination are acceptable.

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 100%; both parameters have descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-level details beyond the schema, such as constraints or formatting. It references related_entity_ids generally, but the schema already covers it, so the description adds no marginal value for parameter understanding.

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 action (returns email delivery indicators for related entity ids) and what is returned (count, last status, timestamp). It distinguishes from loading full email history, but does not explicitly name sibling tools like beel_get_email_delivery or beel_list_email_deliveries, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 implies when to use this tool ('show the state of an entity's email without loading its full history'), which is a clear context. However, it does not state when NOT to use it or explicitly point to alternatives for full history or individual delivery lookups. The guidance is present but not fully explicit.

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