get-mail-tips

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context by detailing the specific checks performed and highlighting its unique offering, though it doesn't cover all nuances like rate limiting or authorization.

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 concise with two sentences, and the main purpose is front-loaded. The second sentence 'No competitor offers this' is somewhat promotional but does not detract significantly.

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 should explain the format or structure of the returned mail tips. Its omission leaves ambiguity for the agent about what to expect in the response, making it slightly incomplete.

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 input schema already has high coverage (100%) with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context by mentioning the types of checks (e.g., group member counts), which aligns with the tipTypes parameter, enhancing understanding.

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 checks recipients before sending and lists specific checks (out-of-office, mailbox full, etc.). It uses a specific verb-resource pair and distinguishes it from sibling tools, as no other sibling offers this functionality.

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 implies the tool is used before sending an email, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, which would improve guidance.

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