check_bounced_emails

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by explaining what the tool does (searches for bounce notifications), listing common reasons for bounces, and describing the return format. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with clear sections for purpose, common reasons, parameters, returns, and an example. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the information is front-loaded with the core purpose first.

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 tool's moderate complexity, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage context, parameter meanings, and includes an example, providing sufficient guidance for an AI agent.

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?

The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains what 'folder' and 'limit' parameters mean (mail folder to check and maximum number of notifications), provides default values, and includes an example showing how to use the limit parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('check') and resource ('bounced or failed email delivery notifications'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_emails or search_emails that handle general email operations rather than specifically bounce notifications.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool by explaining it searches for delivery failure notifications, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (like search_emails for general email searching).

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