get_email_security_block_sender

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get... details' with no mention of read-only nature, required permissions, error behavior when the pattern doesn't exist, or what details are actually returned. This leaves the agent largely uninformed about side effects and expectations.

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 a single short sentence that is easy to parse and front-loads the action and resource. It wastes no words, though the phrasing 'email security blocked sender details' is slightly clunky but not confusing.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully prepare an agent. It does not say what 'details' are included, whether the result is a single object, how pattern_id maps to a blocked sender, or what happens on missing/invalid input. While the simplicity of the tool limits risk, the minimal context leaves meaningful gaps.

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?

The schema already describes both parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's 'account ID' and 'pattern ID' labels, and the term 'pattern_id' is not explained (e.g., what pattern it refers to). The description does not compensate for the semantics of how these parameters identify the blocked sender.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the resource ('email security blocked sender'), making it clear this returns details for a blocked sender. It is distinguishable from the sibling list_email_security_block_senders by the singular 'blocked sender' and the required pattern_id, though it does not explicitly state that this retrieves one specific entity by ID.

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?

No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list_email_security_block_senders strongly implies this is the single-item variant, but the description does not state that relationship, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Usage must be inferred from the tool name and parameter shape.

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