get-mail-tips

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds valuable context about specific data returned (e.g., out-of-office status, group member counts), but does not cover potential errors or state changes.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. First sentence front-loads the purpose and detailed capabilities. Second sentence is a competitive claim but does not detract from clarity.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with two parameters, the description covers the core output. However, it does not specify the response format or mention any constraints (e.g., rate limits). Still, the list of checks is comprehensive enough for practical use.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds contextual meaning by listing the types of information checked, which enriches understanding of the recipients and tipTypes parameters, but does not add new semantic details beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states 'Check recipients before sending' and lists specific mail tips (out-of-office, mailbox full, etc.), clearly identifying the verb and resource. No sibling tool overlaps, providing strong distinction.

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 use before sending emails to check recipients, which is clear. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, though the context of sibling tools makes the purpose self-evident.

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