get--v3-domain_name-bounces-address

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Lookup' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. The description provides no behavioral context beyond the basic action implied by the name.

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 extremely concise with just three words, which could be appropriate if it were more informative. However, this brevity results in under-specification rather than efficient communication. The single phrase doesn't provide enough context to be truly helpful.

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 tool with 2 required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what the parameters mean, when to use it, or any behavioral characteristics. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, meaning neither parameter (domain_name, address) has any documentation in the schema. The description 'Lookup bounce record' adds no information about what these parameters represent, their expected formats, or how they combine to identify a specific bounce record. This leaves both parameters completely undocumented.

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 'Lookup bounce record' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get--v3-domain_name-bounces-address'. While it indicates a read operation ('lookup'), it lacks specificity about what resource is being accessed (bounce records for a specific address within a domain) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get--v3-domain_name-bounces' (which likely retrieves all bounces for a domain).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get--v3-domain_name-bounces' (for all bounces in a domain) or 'get--v3-domain_name-complaints-address' (for complaints at address level), nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for this lookup operation.

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