resend_get_email

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The word 'sent' usefully narrows scope to outbound messages, but the description says nothing about authentication via api_key, rate limits, or whether the email must still exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity is the source of the gaps flagged in other dimensions rather than a model of completeness.

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-by-id tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, with two entirely undocumented parameters (including a credential), it leaves real ambiguity an agent cannot resolve from structured fields alone.

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% across two parameters. 'By ID' loosely maps to email_id, but api_key is completely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving the agent to guess that it is a credential rather than a filter.

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?

Names a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('sent email'), lookup key ('by ID') and provider ('Resend'). It does not differentiate from sibling email retrieval tools (email_get, gmail_read, resend_send_email) beyond the provider name, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus resend_send_email or the many other email-read siblings, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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