retrieve_contact_bounce_logs

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

The description states it fetches data and makes no changes, reinforcing the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint). However, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination behavior or rate limits, which would add value beyond the annotations.

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 very concise, with three short sentences that convey the essential information. It is front-loaded with the read-only indicator and HTTP method, and every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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 retrieval tool, the description is adequate but lacks information about the return format or what the response contains (e.g., list of bounce logs with fields). Given no output schema, such details would improve completeness.

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 each parameter described. The tool description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves a contact's bounce logs and that it is read-only, with the HTTP method and endpoint included. It distinguishes the specific resource (bounce logs) from other contact log tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like retrieve_contact_logs.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., retrieve_contact_logs, retrieve_contact_tracking_logs). It only states it is read-only and fetches data, but no explicit contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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