sendcraft_get_warmup_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the tool is a status check and lists the exact return fields. The phrasing 'Check' implies a read-only operation, and the 'before sending large batches' note adds practical context. It does not explicitly state 'does not modify anything,' but for a zero-parameter status endpoint, this is adequate.

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 three short sentences, each adding meaningful value: what the tool checks, what it returns, and when to use it. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or 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, zero-parameter read tool, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the return values, and the recommended usage context. No output schema exists, but the description directly covers what an agent needs to know, including how this fits into sending workflows.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to compensate for schema coverage, and it adds no parameter information because none exist. This is appropriate.

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 the specific verb 'Check' and clearly names the resource: 'IP warmup status for the self-hosted SMTP server.' It distinguishes this tool from siblings by listing the specific data returned (current day, daily send limit, emails sent today, remaining quota) and the usage context (before large batches).

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Important to check before sending large batches.' It provides a clear use case, but does not mention alternatives or when not to use it beyond that context, which is a minor gap.

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