get_automation_removed_subscriber

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by stating 'Authenticated via API key. Max 10 concurrent requests. Read-only, safe to retry.' and explaining that the subscriber is located by hashing the email address. This provides behavioral details beyond the annotations, achieving a high score.

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 and well-structured: a short purpose statement, followed by a paragraph with behavioral details, then an Args section with clear descriptions, and a Returns section. Every sentence adds value with no superfluous content, earning a top score.

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?

For a simple get tool, the description covers the key aspects: how to locate the subscriber (email hashing), authentication, rate limits, optional account handling, and the return type (JSON). Given the presence of an output schema, it doesn't need to detail the return structure. The description is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema has 0% coverage (no parameter descriptions), so the description carries the full burden. It explains workflow_id as 'The unique id of the classic automation workflow,' email_address as 'The email address of the removed subscriber to look up,' and account as an optional account name with instructions. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, so it scores above baseline.

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' and 'Retrieves details for a specific subscriber that was removed from the automation workflow.' This specifies the verb (get), resource (removed subscriber), and context (classic automation workflow), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_automation_removed_subscribers (list) and remove_automation_subscriber (remove).

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 provides context by mentioning authentication, rate limits, and that it's read-only and safe to retry. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_automation_removed_subscribers). The guidance is implied but not explicit, so it scores at the 'implied usage' level.

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