Email status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the enumerated return states (queued/sent/failed, pending/delivered/bounced/complained), which is genuine behavioral context, but it says nothing about auth requirements, read-only nature, polling expectations, or how quickly status transitions.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the returned value sets, no filler. Every clause carries information about what the agent will get back.

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 and no annotations, the description takes on the return-value burden and does enumerate the possible status and delivery values, which is the key thing an agent needs. It stops short of describing error/not-found behavior or timing, so it is nearly but not fully complete.

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 a single required param, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'sent with send_email' merely restates the schema's own 'Email id from send_email' description, adding no new semantics.

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 names a specific resource (an email sent with send_email) and states exactly what it returns: status and delivery values. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the sibling batch_status, which an agent could confuse it with.

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 phrase 'of an email sent with send_email' implies the tool is used after sending, which is useful implied context, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the batch_status alternative for multi-email lookups.

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