list_bounced_addresses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and its one behavioral claim — 'Read-only' — is genuinely useful. But it omits everything else an agent needs: whether the date window is required/max-ranged, whether results paginate, what fields come back, and how 'hard-bounced' is determined. This is thin disclosure for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences, no padding, purpose front-loaded before the usage hint and the provenance note. Efficient, though the fragment style leaves the core statement as a noun phrase rather than a full sentence.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description conveys purpose, read-only status, and a usage hint. It still leaves the required date-range semantics and return shape unexplained, which a complete definition would cover.

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% and there are two required date-time parameters, so the description must compensate — and it adds nothing about them. It doesn't clarify that both bounds are mandatory, whether the range is inclusive, or the expected format; the schema titles are all the agent has.

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 first sentence names the resource precisely — addresses that hard-bounced — and the SOAP operation name (GetBouncedAddresses) confirms the verb is a retrieval. It is distinguishable from the sibling list_unsubscribed_addresses by the 'hard-bounced' qualifier, though the description never states the 'list' verb outright.

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?

'Feed these back into your own suppression list' gives a downstream use case, which implies when the tool is relevant. However, it never says when to use this versus list_unsubscribed_addresses or any other sibling, and offers no prerequisites or exclusions.

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