Get Correspondence Profile

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds behavioral context: statistics are returned, with 'if computable' noting potential unavailability. No contradiction.

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 concise, front-loaded sentences that efficiently convey purpose, usage, and behavioral nuance with zero waste.

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 output schema exists, description adequately covers inputs and behavioral expectations. Read-only annotation and parameter descriptions complete the picture for a lookup tool.

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%, but description adds meaning beyond schema: emphasizes 'single email address', explains account_id routing, and references settings UI for multi-account configs.

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 the tool returns relationship statistics for a single email address, specifying exact data points (volume, first/last interaction, response time). It differentiates from numerous sibling tools by providing a specific use case: before drafting to match tone and context.

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 notes the tool is 'useful before drafting', providing clear guidance on when to use. While it doesn't list alternatives, the context sufficiently implies usage scenario.

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