get_automation_removed_subscriber

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

The description is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=true) and adds useful behavioral context about hashing the email. It does not contradict any annotations and provides transparency beyond the core metadata.

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: a brief purpose statement, followed by a detailed paragraph, then Args and Returns sections. No unnecessary words, and the information is front-loaded.

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 (JSON with removed subscriber details), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and retrieval mechanism. It is complete for a simple 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?

The description adds meaning for two of three parameters (workflow_id and email_address) with clear explanations in the Args section. The optional account parameter is not documented, but the schema provides its structure. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates well for most params.

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 a single subscriber removed from a classic automation workflow.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like list_automation_removed_subscribers and remove_automation_subscriber.

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 explains when to use this tool (to retrieve details of a specific removed subscriber) and how it works (hashing the email). It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling list tool is obvious from context.

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