get_non_delivery_by_date

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. However, the description adds no behavioral context such as pagination behavior, return format, default limits, or any side effects. Without additional disclosure, the tool's behavior remains opaque beyond the schema.

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 and not bloated, but it is under-specified. It consists of only an endpoint path and a compatibility note, missing critical functional information. While it is concise, it does not serve as a sufficient tool description; under-specification limits its value.

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 has 5 parameters, no output schema, and high conceptual complexity, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to interpret date ranges, or when to prefer it over similar report tools. The annotations and schema provide some context, but the description itself is too sparse for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 five parameters (limit, date_to, dry_run, date_from, cursor_next) have individual descriptions. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, but the baseline is 3 because the schema carries the burden. The endpoint line does not clarify parameter usage.

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 provides the API endpoint 'GET /api/v2/blist/report/non-delivery' and notes Python SDK parity, but it does not explicitly state that the tool retrieves non-delivery report data for a date range. The tool name implies the function, and the endpoint identifies the resource, but there is no clear verb+resource statement, making the purpose vague.

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 does not mention use cases, prerequisites, selection criteria, or how it differs from sibling tools like get_non_delivery_by_issue. The 'Python SDK parity' note is not usage guidance.

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