Lịch sử gửi email

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioural disclosure beyond that: message bodies are never stored, only delivery metadata is returned. It still omits pagination behaviour and rate limits, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with the purpose and the most important data-retention constraint stated first. The Vietnamese/English duplication is intentional for audience coverage and does not add noise.

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?

The description covers purpose, filter dimensions, and the key output constraint (metadata only), which is adequate for an agent to understand what it returns. However, with 7 parameters and no output schema, it should say more about pagination (page/limit), default ordering, or result size limits.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It identifies the filterable categories (config, status, event, date), which partially maps to config_id, status, event_type, from_date, and to_date. However, it gives no detail on page/limit, config_id format, or date syntax beyond what the schema's enum and pattern definitions already provide.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (list email delivery metadata per send) and adds a key distinction ('message bodies are never stored') that separates it from content-oriented email tools. It does not name any sibling alternative, so it falls just short of 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?

The description implies usage by listing the dimensions you can filter on (config, status, event, date), but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not point to alternatives like monapay_email_stats or monapay_list_email_suppressions.

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