api_post_v2_email_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context. It does not explain what the check entails, whether it returns a pass/fail or a list of issues, or any rate limits/auth requirements. The only hint of behavior is 'check layout,' which is too vague.

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 very short (one sentence), which is efficient, but it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise. It lacks enough detail to be useful on its own, so it does not earn its place as a complete description.

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?

With a complex 'checks' parameter containing objects and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It leaves the agent guessing about the return format and how to interpret results. The schema provides some clues, but the description fails to give necessary context for a validation tool among many similar siblings.

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%, so all three parameters (body, checks, dry_run) already have descriptions with examples. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states the HTTP method and endpoint, plus a vague Russian phrase 'Проверить верстку' (check layout). It identifies a verb and resource, but 'верстка' is ambiguous and does not clarify that this tool validates email HTML/accessibility issues. It also does not distinguish it from sibling tools like validate_email or api_post_v2_emails_clean.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only gives the endpoint and a minimal purpose, with no mention of prerequisites, intended use cases, or exclusions.

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