Campaign bounces and complaints

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

Annotations already declare this a safe, read-only, idempotent read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: a minimum server version (Plunk v0.15+), a hard page cap of 100, and pagination via cursor. It does not describe item-level fields returned, but the extra operational constraints are meaningful.

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 labeled sections (Purpose, Not for, Returns, Use when, Note) front-load the key scoping and routing information, and each sentence carries information. The closing reputation advice is slightly editorial but still earns its place by motivating follow-up action.

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 correctly supplies the return shape ('A page of recipients with a cursor for the next page') and pagination behavior. Combined with the routing guidance and version requirement, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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 the schema already documents id, type, limit, and cursor, including the enum and the 100 max. The description's 'capped at 100 per page' and 'page with a cursor' merely restate schema facts rather than adding syntax or usage nuance. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('list the individual recipients whose mail bounced, or who marked a campaign as spam') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling that reports totals (plunk_get_campaign_stats). An agent can tell exactly what this returns versus the stats tool 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?

It names the alternative explicitly under 'Not for' (totals live in plunk_get_campaign_stats) and gives a concrete triggering condition under 'Use when' (a worrying bounce or complaint rate requiring address-level cleanup). When-to-use, when-not, and the alternative are all stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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