email_hard_bounces

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Query' implies a read, but it says nothing about auth requirements (the apiKey/restEndpoint params hint at this), pagination behavior, or what the response contains.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no redundant phrasing. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves information gaps that conciseness alone cannot excuse.

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 read-only reporting tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but omits return-shape and pagination expectations that an agent would need to drive repeated calls.

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 100% with all seven parameters documented inline, including the limit cap and date format. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (query) and a precise resource (emails that hard bounced) with a date-range scope. It distinguishes itself from the create/remove-oriented email siblings, though it doesn't name which neighbor it replaces.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as email_bounce_remove or email_unsubscribes, and no prerequisites or context about acceptable date ranges. The agent must infer the call site.

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