Trạng thái email

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by mentioning status, events, and sandbox_preview, but does not discuss auth requirements, rate limits, or response structure.

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 short and front-loaded, containing only the essential use context. The bilingual repetition is slightly redundant, but each language version is efficiently written.

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-only status lookup, the description is adequate but not complete: it mentions returned concepts without an output schema, and it leaves the sole required parameter undocumented. Given the rich annotations, safety is covered, but the call mechanics remain underspecified.

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 the only parameter, email_id, is undocumented in the schema. The description refers to inspecting 'an email' but never explains what email_id should be, where to obtain it, or its expected format.

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 gives a clear verb and resource: inspect an email after sending. The Vietnamese portion adds that it reads delivery status, events, and sandbox_preview. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like mail_list or mail_inbox_message.

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?

It clearly states the context for use — after sending an email, when confirming delivery — but does not name when not to use it or point to concrete alternatives among the mail_* siblings.

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