get--v3-domain_name-unsubscribes-address

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Lookup' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, returns a single record or list, includes error handling, or has rate limits. For a tool with two required parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it's under-specified rather than concise—it lacks necessary details but doesn't include extraneous information. It's front-loaded but too minimal to be fully 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?

Given the tool has 2 required parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral traits, or output expectations, making it insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.

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 schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description doesn't mention parameters at all, failing to explain what 'domain_name' and 'address' represent (e.g., email domain and recipient address) or their expected formats. This leaves both parameters undocumented, which is inadequate for a tool with two required inputs.

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 unsubscribe record' states a verb ('Lookup') and resource ('unsubscribe record'), providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what exactly is being looked up and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get--v3-domain_name-unsubscribes' (which likely lists multiple unsubscribes) or 'get--v3-domain_name-bounces-address' (which has similar structure for bounces).

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing a domain and address), contrast it with sibling tools (like the broader 'get--v3-domain_name-unsubscribes'), or specify use cases. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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