Check send status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the result is a saved snapshot, and the outcome may be indeterminate ('uncertain outcome'), which matters because an agent must not treat non-success as definitive failure.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action, the object, and the outcome states with no filler. Slightly more could be said about usage without bloat, but nothing present is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return values need not be explained, and the annotations cover safety. However, for a tool requiring an operationId, the definition never explains what an operation is or where to obtain one, leaving a meaningful gap for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% for two required parameters (accountId, operationId), and the description supplies no meaning for either — it never says where the operationId comes from or how it relates to accountId. The 'send or forward' wording hints at scope but does not compensate for the complete lack of per-parameter guidance.

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 (check) and a specific resource (the saved result of a send or forward), and enumerates the outcome space (succeeded/failed/uncertain). It is clear on its own, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the similarly named sibling get_status.

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?

The phrase 'of a send or forward' implies the tool is used after invoking send_email or forward_email, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of polling vs. one-shot lookup, and no pointer to an alternative such as get_status.

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