check_bounced_emails

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully conveys defaults (INBOX, 20) and the shape of results (failed recipient plus reason), but says nothing about scan scope (how many messages are examined, whether whole-folder or only recent), whether it mutates state such as marking messages read, or cost/latency implications.

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 one-line purpose followed by clear Args/Returns/Example sections makes it easy to scan. The three bounce-reason bullets are mildly redundant with the purpose line, and the Returns block largely restates what the output schema already provides, but the overall length is reasonable.

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 simple two-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, defaults, and return contents adequately. Gaps remain around valid folder values and scan behavior, which matter because the agent must decide where bounces actually land.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it does so partially by explaining 'folder: Mail folder to check' and 'limit: Maximum number of bounce notifications to check.' It does not clarify valid folder names or whether the limit caps messages scanned or bounce notifications returned, leaving an important ambiguity.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Check for bounced or failed email delivery notifications') and clarifies the domain by listing what counts as a bounce. It never names a sibling (e.g., search_emails or list_emails) to contrast against, so differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the post-send check for failed deliveries. There is no explicit 'use this instead of search_emails when...' guidance, no when-not conditions, and no note on prerequisites such as which folder actually receives bounces (INBOX vs. a dedicated bounce mailbox).

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