cm_get_journey_email_recipients

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by noting paging behavior. However, no disclosure of rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. Acceptable for a read operation.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence effectively communicates the core function. Concise without omitting essential information, though could benefit from a bit more detail on paging.

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?

No output schema, and description does not mention return values (e.g., recipient fields, pagination metadata). For a paged endpoint, more context on response structure is needed for completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond parameter names (e.g., no explanation of ordering or pagination nuances).

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?

Description clearly states verb (Get) and resource (recipients of a specific journey email), and mentions paging. It distinguishes from sibling tools like cm_get_journey_email_bounces by specifying 'recipients', but lacks explicit differentiation from other journey email tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cm_get_journey_email_opens or cm_get_campaign_recipients. No prerequisites or context for when recipients are available.

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