get_delivery_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it returns all events or only filtered ones. The description only lists filter parameters.

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 concise with a brief headline, a contextual sentence, and a bulleted parameter list. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though the parameter section could be slightly more compact.

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 presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and filter capabilities. However, it omits details like result ordering, pagination behavior (beyond limit), and event type format. Still, it is mostly complete for a straightforward get-operation.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful explanations for all 5 parameters (e.g., 'message_id: Filter events for a specific message'). This compensates for the blank schema and helps the agent understand each parameter's purpose.

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 retrieves delivery event logs (sent, delivered, bounced, complained, failed) and tracks email lifecycle or audits delivery. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_deliverability_stats (broader stats) and thread-related tools.

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 tracking email lifecycle and auditing, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings (e.g., get_deliverability_stats for aggregated stats). No 'when not to use' or alternative suggestions.

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