get_mailing

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. It also includes the HTTP method and endpoint path, adding context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention authentication requirements or rate limits.

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 extremely concise: two lines with no wasted words. The first line states the purpose, and the second line gives the API endpoint, which is informative and efficient.

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 simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but lacks details about the return format beyond 'details/extracted content'. It does not explain what fields or data will be returned, which would help with completeness.

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 does not explain the parameters uuid and scanbox_id beyond their presence in the endpoint path. The schema has 0% coverage (no descriptions), and the description does not compensate by clarifying what these IDs represent or how to obtain them.

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 'Get one mailing with its details/extracted content', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_mailings (list) and other get_* tools (e.g., get_mailing_pdf) by specifying 'details/extracted content'.

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 usage for retrieving a single mailing via 'Get one mailing', and notes it is read-only. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_mailing_pdf or get_mailing_zip, nor does it mention prerequisites or context.

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