get_delivery_events

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral transparency. It clearly indicates a read-only operation via 'Get' and lists the event types. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, or any potential side effects. The lack of explicit safety statements is somewhat mitigated by the inherently read-only nature of the tool, but important behavioral details are missing.

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 succinct and well-structured, with a brief summary followed by a clean Args list. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content. The format makes it easy for an agent to parse the core purpose and parameter semantics quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (five optional filters, output schema present), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, filters, and default limit. It does not explain ordering or pagination behavior, but the presence of a limit parameter implies basic paging. Overall, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 input schema has no property descriptions (0% coverage). The description's Args list fully compensates by explaining all five parameters: message_id, inbox_id, domain_id, event_type, and limit. It provides enum-like values for event_type and the default limit, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare type information.

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 'Get delivery event log' and enumerates the event types (sent, delivered, bounced, complained, failed), specifying the resource and action. It also explains the use case: 'Track the lifecycle of individual emails or audit delivery across an inbox.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_deliverability_stats and get_suppressions by focusing on the event log itself.

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 provides clear usage context: tracking individual email lifecycle or auditing delivery across an inbox. It implies when to use the tool but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. There are no exclusionary guidelines, so this meets the 'clear context, no exclusions' criterion.

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