explain_bounce

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond these: it fetches the email, classifies bounce types (hard/soft/block/suppressed), explains in plain language, and recommends actions. This reveals internal logic and output structure without contradicting annotations.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key outputs. It is front-loaded with the main action ('Diagnose why an email bounced') and provides essential details without unnecessary words. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple input (one ID) and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns (classification, explanation, recommendation), and its role in the domain. There are no missing details for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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% with one parameter 'id' documented as 'The bounced email ID'. The description adds no additional meaning for this parameter beyond what the schema provides. Since schema coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate. No param-specific enrichment needed.

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 uses a specific verb ('Diagnose') and clearly identifies the resource ('why an email bounced'). It lists specific actions: fetching the email, classifying the bounce type, explaining in plain language, and recommending actions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like inspect_email or get_email, which likely provide raw data without diagnosis.

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 description implicitly indicates use when an email has bounced and you need to understand the cause and next steps. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context of sibling tools (e.g., inspect_email, get_email) suggests this is the specialized tool for bounced emails. A missing explicit exclusion drops the score from 5.

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