api_post_v2_emails_clean

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context whatsoever. It does not explain what 'clean' or 'standardization' entails, what happens to the request, or what the output might be. Since it adds zero value beyond annotations, the score is low.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It consists solely of an endpoint path and a single ambiguous word. Every sentence does not earn its place because there is effectively no content that helps the agent understand the tool.

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 tool's simple schema (2 params) and the presence of annotations, the description is still completely inadequate. There is no output schema to clarify return values, and the description does not explain the purpose, behavior, or usage context. With dozens of siblings, this lacks even minimal context for correct selection and invocation.

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 100% description coverage for both parameters (email and dry_run), each with its own explanation. The description itself adds no parameter information, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, so the baseline 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 is essentially just the HTTP endpoint path ('POST /api/v2/emails/clean/') and a single word 'Стандартизация' (standardization). It does not clearly state what the tool does, nor does it differentiate it from the many sibling tools that handle email-related operations. It reads more like a label than a functional description.

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 the many alternatives. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided. The description offers no help in deciding whether to invoke this tool over similar ones like api_post_v2_email_check or validate_email.

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