Get Email Test Result

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent, but the description adds substantial behavior the annotations cannot: the full status vocabulary, that temperror is not a failure and is never scored, what the received payload contains, and strict handling rules for result.dmarc.fix and ai_assessment.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger and status semantics, and every sentence carries operational weight (status meanings, temperror caveat, verbatim-presentation rules). It runs long, but there is little filler to cut.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating what received returns (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, score, advice) and how to present it. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the result 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 coverage is 100% and the single test_id parameter is fully documented in the schema itself (including that it is not the test address and the 24-hour retention). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, 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+resource (retrieve the result of an email deliverability test) and anchors itself to the sibling start_email_test, so an agent can distinguish it from list_email_tests without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly says when to call it (after start_email_test, once the user says the email was sent) and what to do on each branch, e.g. ask the user to send and call again when status is pending. Names the predecessor tool and the trigger condition.

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