get_sender_detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is safe. The description adds behavioral context about what is returned (e.g., up to 20 sample subjects, folder breakdown). No further behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, rate limits) are disclosed, but the added content detail is valuable beyond 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?

Single sentence that packs the key return components (addresses, folder breakdown, subjects, unsubscribe methods). It is efficient with no wasted words, but could be slightly restructured (e.g., bullet points or separate clauses) for clarity. The most critical info is front-loaded with 'Full detail for one sender domain'.

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?

The description covers the main return components and mentions the account context. However, it does not explain behavior when account is omitted, nor does it describe the structure of the response (no output schema). Given the lack of output schema, the description should be more explicit about return format and optional parameter effects.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'domain' is the sender domain and mentions 'for one account', hinting at the optional account parameter. However, it does not explain the account parameter's format, default behavior, or how to specify it. The description adds some meaning but is not fully explicit for both parameters.

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 specifies the verb 'get' (implied) and resource 'sender detail', listing concrete items: addresses, folder breakdown, up to 20 sample subjects, and unsubscribe methods. It distinguishes from siblings like list_sender_groups and list_unsubscribe_candidates by focusing on a single domain's full detail.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The description implies it's for retrieving details of a specific sender domain, but does not mention alternatives (e.g., list_sender_groups for groups) or prerequisites (e.g., domain must exist). Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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