Lịch sử gửi email

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It meaningfully discloses that message bodies are never stored, which is an important privacy trait, and implies a read-only metadata listing. It omits pagination behavior, ordering, retention, and permission requirements, but those are less critical for a non-destructive log query.

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 with the core action, followed by the privacy caveat and filter dimensions. The Vietnamese and English halves are redundant, but the duplication is compact and unlikely to confuse an agent.

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 read-only optional-filter listing tool, the description covers purpose, the no-body guarantee, and the main filter dimensions. It lacks any hint of the returned metadata fields, default ordering, or pagination behavior, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates: it maps filters to config, status, event, and date, which correspond to config_id, status, event_type, and from_date/to_date. It does not explain enum meanings, date format, or pagination semantics, so agents must still rely on property names and schema patterns.

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 states a specific verb ('List'/'Tra') on a specific resource ('email delivery metadata'/'email logs') and explicitly excludes message bodies, which distinguishes it from email config, stats, and suppression tools. The bilingual wording reinforces the same intent without ambiguity.

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 gives clear use context: retrieving per-send delivery metadata with optional filters by config, status, event, and date. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state exclusions, but the intended lookup scenario is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over the related email stats or config tools.

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